[openib-general] Some Missing Features from mthca/user MADaccess

[shaharf]

Hal, you are right. I confused the method mask the attributes mask. This makes my idea to be invalid. But maybe we should add a flag(s) to this agent registration to set/clear the is_SM bit? you can check that you are granted "respond" permission on qp0 before allowing it.
 
BTW, what the reasoning behind having a method mask? What is the point? Is it due to historical reasons?
Note that filtering methods that can be handled by an application is problematic. MHO is that the correct thing to do is to let the application reply an error. Failing to do that may cause applications to conclude that the responding application is dead.
 
On the other hand, attributes mask are much more reasonable. It may allow you to split qp0/qp1 responsibilities to several applications on the same node. This may be applicable to SA attributes. For example, I am not sure why the OpenSM have to manage the service record database. Such attributes mask will enable us to distribute it.
 
In the current state only the SM should request to respond on any methods, unless you can be certain that no SM is required to run on the same port.
 
Shahar

________________________________

From: Hal Rosenstock [mailto:halr at voltaire.com]
Sent: Mon 1/10/2005 11:22 PM
To: shaharf
Cc: Michael S. Tsirkin; Roland Dreier; openib-general at openib.org
Subject: RE: [openib-general] Some Missing Features from mthca/user MADaccess



On Mon, 2005-01-10 at 11:30, shaharf wrote:
> Thinking about it, I think there is another alternative which maybe
> cleaner: automatically raise the issm bit if someone registers to answer
> sminfo attr.

There is no such registration currently so this approach is moot.

-- Hal