[openib-general] semantics of process_mad?

[Hal Rosenstock]

On Mon, 2004-09-13 at 15:34, Roland Dreier wrote:
>     Sean> Should we look at sending in a structure with some of this
>     Sean> information?  Right now, I think we have 4 parameters
>     Sean> (device, flags, in_mad, out_mad).  And we want to add in QP
>     Sean> number, port number, and LID.  Am I missing something?
> 
> I don't think QP number is required.  

My bad (for getting someone started down this path) :-(

> So we just need port and LID, which I don't think merits a struct.
> 
>     Sean> Port number seems like it could have its own parameter.  For
>     Sean> the source LID, would it be possible to use a flag for
>     Sean> locally generated MADs?  (Not suggesting this over using the
>     Sean> source LID, just trying to see what other options there
>     Sean> are.)
> 
> I think the issue with using a flag is that it puts the knowledge that
> SLID==0 means locally generated (which is really Tavor-specific) into
> the access layer.

That seems better. I still don't quite have the full picture and want to
see how this works out for other HCAs which might not do this and also
for proper layering for Tavor.

>     Sean> Also, I didn't quite follow the reasoning for the QP number
>     Sean> parameter.
> 
> Actually I was convinced that we don't want the QP number (it should
> be up to the access layer to filter out class/QPN mismatches like SMPs
> received on QP1).

I'm just about to code this into the receive path now :-) I'm assuming
that the transmit side doesn't need this paranoid checking for miscoded
clients.

-- Hal