[ofa-general] [PATCH 5/7 V3] osm: QoS - adding QoS policy options

[Sasha Khapyorsky]

On 19:12 Wed 29 Aug     , Hal Rosenstock wrote:
> On 8/29/07, Sasha Khapyorsky <sashak at voltaire.com> wrote:
> > On 17:48 Wed 29 Aug     , Hal Rosenstock wrote:
> > > >
> > > > OK, there are three ways we want this thing to work:
> > > > 1. QoS is off
> > > > 2. The old QoS is on but w/o policy file
> > > > 3. The old QoS is on, plus reading policy file
> > > >
> > > > The first option is clear: if a user doesn't turns QoS on (-Q), QoS is off as before.
> > > >
> > > > Second and third options: if QoS is on, OpenSM looks for policy file in the default
> > > > location or in other location that was provided by user. If the file is not found,
> > > > QoS works as before.
> > >
> > > This sounds OK to me and is my first preference.
> > >
> > > > Do we want to add additional option for "enhanced" QoS?
> > > > If so, we will have three QoS-ralated command line options:
> > > >  - option for turning the QoS on (currently -Q)
> > > >  - option to turn the new QoS on (some new letter - must get
> > > >    one quick before they all run out... :)
> > > >  - option for policy file location if differs from default (currently -Y)
> > >
> > > This seems like the least preferable to me. Also, would need to deal
> > > with both on which seems to mean use new QoS.
> > >
> > > > Alternatively, we can turn -Q option into levels:
> > > >  -Q 0: QoS is off (default)
> > > >  -Q 1: old QoS is on
> > > >  -Q 2: old QoS plus reading policy file
> > >
> > > This one also seems OK to me (second preference).
> > >
> > > Anyone else with an opinion on this ? Sasha ?
> >
> > I like -Q and -Y as Yevgeny proposed.
> 
> So is that the first option ?

Yes. It is simplest and provides the same functionality.

> Actually, I think I like the third option best now that I think more
> on this. It seems a little odd to me to rely on the policy file not
> being present to determine which QoS to run. Seems a little cleaner
> this way to me.

We need file name option anyway, so things like '-Q 1 -Y ...' are
unclear. Also it would be nice to have "universal" (not for "two QoS")
user interface in order to not change it later.

Sasha