[ofa-general] Re: [PATCH] osm/osm_mcast_mgr.c: coredump in ofed_1_2

[Hal Rosenstock]

Hi Sasha,

On Sat, 2007-12-29 at 18:50 +0000, Sasha Khapyorsky wrote:
> Hi Hal,
> 
> On 09:15 Thu 27 Dec     , Hal Rosenstock wrote:
> > 
> > There were other patches I supplied, etc. I don't think it was just the
> > outstanding counter fix but others too.
> 
> I may be wrong about it, but I don't remember this now. If you like me
> to review those patches again, let's review.

There were multiple patches supplied for OFED 1.2 management but the
time has long (several months) come and gone and at this point, I'm not
sure I want to go back. I was more commenting on the change by
incorporating an OFED 1.2 patch when these were previously effectively
rejected.

> > > > I can dig out the emails if this is really needed.
> > > > 
> > > > > I don't backport non critical fixes and improvements from master to 1.2
> > > > > - that is true.
> > > > 
> > > > There were a number of fixes originally supplied for 1.2 up ported to
> > > > 1.3. Guess you could always consider them non critical although I would
> > > > beg to differ on some of those.
> > > 
> > > Always - no, but in general I prefer to run master in the field.
> > 
> > Not everyone has that luxury (and master has not even shipped as 1.3
> > yet).
> 
> The recent OpenSM (and management) versions are available as tarballs
> and/or from the git repo.

Yes, but that's largely a non sequitor. It does not address the issue
that not everyone can update to the latest and greatest just because a
new release is made by a maintainer (or meets the criteria for OFED
approval which has not yet occurred in terms of these). In fact, there
still appear to be reasonably large ongoing changes in the OpenSM area.

I believe this to be an ongoing issue (in the sense it will shortly
exist for OFED 1.3 as soon as it is in the "can"). I think the EWG needs
to address this.

> > I tried to get this changed but seems no one else shares this
> > issue. As I said before, the implication of this is that 1.2 is not
> > officially supported based on this policy (although there are fixes
> > going into 1.2 as 1.2.5 is still "live").
> 
> There should not be connection between "this policy" and the official
> OFED 1.2 support which is provided by software/hardware vendors.

Maybe support is the wrong word; not sure what the right word is. Sure;
support comes from the vendor (which in the case of OpenSM is only
perhaps Mellanox and those using it in their platforms).

In any case, it is a fact that there is some maintainer support for OFED
1.2 which is ongoing (which is not the case for management with the
exception of the point patch you incorporated into your ofed_1_2 tree.

-- Hal

> Sasha
> _______________________________________________
> general mailing list
> general at lists.openfabrics.org
> http://lists.openfabrics.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/general
> 
> To unsubscribe, please visit http://openib.org/mailman/listinfo/openib-general