[ofa-general] [PATCH] OpenSM/osm_port_info_rcv.c: In __osm_pi_rcv_process_endport, isSMdisabled also indicates that an SM is present so poll SMInfo

[Roland Dreier]

 > p.865 C14-53 and C14-54.1.1 state the behavior I originally said (an not
 > active SM responds to SMInfo gets/sets). I think this superceeds the
 > first bullet in C14-70 which says incoming SMInfos are dropped.

That's something else -- it's talking about a running SM that is in
the NOT-ACTIVE state, because the master SM disabled it via a
SubnSet(SMInfo).  But that wouldn't affect the IsSMDisabled bit, which
is something different:

  C14-69: If a SM can reside on a port, a vendor defined, out-of-band
  mechanism shall be provided that when asserted will disable the
  capability of running a SM from that port and the state of the
  mechanism shall be indicated in the Portinfo:CapabilityMask.IsSMdisabled
  bit.

So if IsSMDisabled then an SM is forbidden from running at all.  And
I'm still confused -- why would anyone care whether a port has no SM
running (ie IsSM is not asserted), or _really_ has no SM running (IsSM
not asserted and IsSMDisabled asserted)?

 - R.