[ofa-general] Re: opensm: a bug in heavy sweep? - no LFT re-configuration

[Hal Rosenstock]

On 7/24/07, Hal Rosenstock <hal.rosenstock at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> On 7/23/07, Sasha Khapyorsky <sashak at voltaire.com> wrote:
> >
> > Hi Eitan,
> >
> > On 20:59 Mon 23 Jul     , Eitan Zahavi wrote:
> > > Hi Sasha, Hal,
> > >
> > > I think I have an idea:
> > >
> > > Since this is a specific switch that reported ChangeBit or Trap why
> > > can't we just qualify that there was no change in the switch setup?
> >
> > The ChangeBit seems to be good start point - then OpenSM will query all
> > switch ports PortInfo anyway and if for all ports PortState is <= INIT
> > (and at least for one port it is = INIT), it means that this switch was
> > rebooted/reinitialized.
> >
> > And for single port PortState drop to = INIT should indicate
> > reinitialization.
> >
> > Seems correct?
>
>
> Wouldn't this be all ports in INIT indicate reset of switch ?
>

for ports which are LinkUp. This is pretty dicey :-( I don't see a good way
to determine this.

-- Hal


> -- Hal
>
> > We could send PortInfo, SwitchInfo,
> >
> > SwitchInfo is queried at each light sweep, PortInfo's if ChangeBit is
> > set. Guess we are ok with it even now.
> >
> > > LFT, MFT, SL2VL, VLArb, PKey queries
> > > and make sure no change from previous state. Or we could simply
> > enforce
> > > last state by sending it over again ...
> >
> > I think we could want to re-read PKey tables in order to preserve
> > existing PKey indices and just to flush (overwrite with new settings)
> > LFT, MFT, SL2VL, VLArb tables. Reasonable?
> >
> > Sasha
> >
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openfabrics.org/pipermail/general/attachments/20070724/ab4c61d4/attachment.html>