[ofa-general] Re: [PATCH] opensm: enforce routing paths rebalancing on switch reconnection

[Sasha Khapyorsky]

On 11:20 Wed 05 Mar     , Al Chu wrote:
> 
> Perhaps it does "reach __osm_pi_rcv_process_switch_port", but the
> need_update flag is just not set?  Is it possible for those remote side
> ports to be at ARMED or ACTIVE before the 2nd heavy sweep?  If so, then
> that remote side port would have their need_update flag cleared, and
> thus ignore_existing_lfts wouldn't be set in
> __osm_pi_rcv_process_switch_port().

Yes, this makes sense. It is possible that port was in DOWN state during
discovery, but becomes INIT later yet in 1st heavy sweep before link
manager set this to ARMED and ACTIVE. Actually your patch fixes exactly
this case - nice catch! So I'm going to apply both patches then.

Sasha