[ofa-general] ***SPAM*** ibdm network topology format

[Hal Rosenstock]

Sasha,

On Thu, Oct 2, 2008 at 1:00 PM, Sasha Khapyorsky <sashak at voltaire.com> wrote:
> Hi Hal,
>
> On 10:18 Thu 02 Oct     , Hal Rosenstock wrote:
>> >
>> > 2. ibis doesn't register class 0x81 - SM direct routed, only SM lid
>> > routed (0x1). In comment in ibutils/ibis/src/ibsm.c line 118 is stated:
>> >
>> >  /* no need to bind the Directed Route class as it will automatically
>> >     be handled by the osm_vendor_bind if asked for LID route */
>> >
>> > As far as I can see in osm_vendor_bind() it is not (but it is in
>> > opposite order - when class 0x81 is registered class 0x1 will be
>> > registered too).
>>
>> Yes that is what osm_vendor_ibumad.c:osm_vendor_bind does.
>>
>> So either ibdiagnet needs to register 0x81 r.t.1 or
>> osm_vendor_ibumad.c:osm_vendor_bind needs to be "symmetric" in terms
>> of registering the other SM class when only one is requested. This is
>> a minor change in the underlying semantics. [Popping up a level in
>> terms of this, (other than applications taking advantage of this
>> "feature",) I'm not sure why the vendor layer should assume that just
>> because one SM class is requested, the other should be too].  I just
>> looked and the latter appears to be consistent with the other vendor
>> layers. I think either solution will work. Your solution below also
>> looks like it would work but don't that should be done in a sim layer.
>
> I'm not like this "solution" too, but the fact that ibis works with real
> stack without registering 0x81 class is unclear for me.

Me too. See below.

>> > Somehow it works without ibsim - so I suspect user_mad handles it.
>> >
>> > (Hal, could you clarify?)
>>
>> The kernel (user_mad/mad) does not change the requested registrations
>> but I'm not sure I understand the question you are asking to be
>> clarified. Is that what you're asking ?
>
> ibis works somehow with real stack. It registers 0x1 class only and
> uses direct routing SMPs. Do you have any idea about why
> (osm_vendor_idumad and/or libibumad don't help)?

libibumad umad_register does not do anything that would affect this
either. I can only conclude there must be something in ibutils that
fixes this if it does work with the real stack. It shouldn't be too
hard to track down where that registration for class 0x81 comes from.

-- Hal

> Sasha
>