<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 3.2//EN">
<HTML>
<HEAD>
<META HTTP-EQUIV="Content-Type" CONTENT="text/html; charset=us-ascii">
<META NAME="Generator" CONTENT="MS Exchange Server version 5.5.2654.45">
<TITLE>RE: [openib-general] OpenSM on multiple HCA machine</TITLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY>
<P><FONT SIZE=2>I was not aware of an issue with multiple HCAs in the OpenIB (gen2) stack.</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>The Gen1 stack had this issue and it was resolved. I hope to be able to focus on OpenIB stack in the coming months such that I can help Hal in fixing these kind of issues too.</FONT></P>
<P><FONT SIZE=2>Eitan Zahavi</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>> -----Original Message-----</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>> From: Bernhard Fischer [<A HREF="mailto:rep.nop@aon.at">mailto:rep.nop@aon.at</A>]</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>> Sent: Tuesday, June 28, 2005 12:14 AM</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>> To: Hal Rosenstock</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>> Cc: Eitan Zahavi; openib-windows@openib.org; 'openib-general@openib.org'</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>> Subject: Re: [openib-general] Re: IB Diagnositic Tools</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>> </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>> On Mon, Jun 27, 2005 at 02:04:16PM -0400, Hal Rosenstock wrote:</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>> >Hi Eitan,</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>> ></FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>> >On Sat, 2005-06-25 at 15:25, Eitan Zahavi wrote:</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>> >> Following the discussion about the debug tools, I would like to</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>> >> propose using OpenSM Vendor layer as a common layer for developing the</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>> >> debug tools.</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>> </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>> Hal,</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>> </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>> This is kinda offtopic, but (iirc) i once stumbled over the issue of</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>> "port" vs. "mgmt port" [back then i had access to two 2-port cards]</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>> where you may have said something along the lines of</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>> \"There is clearly a bug for multi HCAs in osm_vendor_get_all_port_attr</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>> which is in the vendor layer. This needs to be fixed and is our problem.</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>> So I am close to being able to commit what I now have for this and fix</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>> this later (as there are other multi HCA issues).\"</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>> Just curious.. did somebody already have a chance to touch those or not?</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>> </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>> On a related note (just the same thing, i tend to think)</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>> /* "local ports" is(?) phys, shouldn't this exclude port 0 then ? */</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>> </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>> I'm not too familiar with these kindof questions, which might be define</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>> in a spec, so any hint on this would be well received, at least from my</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>> part.</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>> </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>> anyone? Eitan?</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>> --</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>> thank you,</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>> Bernhard</FONT>
</P>
</BODY>
</HTML>