[ofa-general] Re: [PATCH] osm: integer indexes in fat-tree

[Hal Rosenstock]

Hi Yevgeny,

On Mon, 2007-05-14 at 03:30, Yevgeny Kliteynik wrote:
> Hi Hal,
> 
> Enhancing integer indexes in fat-tree to 32 bits.
> I'm not sure whether it's a bug - fat-tree routing makes indexing
> not the same way as up/down. It marks rank on all the leaf switches,
> and only then starts BFS (starting from all the leaf switches and not
> from roots), so I don't think that it can really overflow the existing
> indexes. But who knows...
> Fixing this won't hurt anyway.

No, it won't.

> Please apply to master.

See comment/question below.

-- Hal

> -- Yevgeny
> 
> Signed-off-by:  Yevgeny Kliteynik <kliteyn at dev.mellanox.co.il>
> ---
>  osm/opensm/osm_ucast_ftree.c |   12 ++++++------
>  1 files changed, 6 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/osm/opensm/osm_ucast_ftree.c b/osm/opensm/osm_ucast_ftree.c
> index 7b6a6a5..ca51484 100644
> --- a/osm/opensm/osm_ucast_ftree.c
> +++ b/osm/opensm/osm_ucast_ftree.c
> @@ -174,7 +174,7 @@ typedef struct ftree_sw_t_
>  {
>     cl_map_item_t          map_item;
>     osm_switch_t         * p_osm_sw;
> -   uint8_t                rank;
> +   uint32_t               rank;
>     ftree_tuple_t          tuple;
>     ib_net16_t             base_lid;
>     ftree_port_group_t  ** down_port_groups;
> @@ -588,7 +588,7 @@ __osm_ftree_sw_create(
>     memset(p_sw, 0, sizeof(ftree_sw_t));
>  
>     p_sw->p_osm_sw = p_osm_sw;
> -   p_sw->rank = 0xFF;
> +   p_sw->rank = 0xFFFFFFFF;
>     __osm_ftree_tuple_init(p_sw->tuple);
>  
>     p_sw->base_lid = osm_node_get_base_lid(p_sw->p_osm_sw->p_node, 0);
> @@ -678,7 +678,7 @@ static boolean_t
>  __osm_ftree_sw_ranked(
>     IN  ftree_sw_t * p_sw)
>  {
> -   return (p_sw->rank != 0xFF); 
> +   return (p_sw->rank != 0xFFFFFFFF); 
>  }
>  
>  /***************************************************/
> @@ -1025,7 +1025,7 @@ __osm_ftree_fabric_destroy(ftree_fabric_
>  /***************************************************/
>  
>  static void 
> -__osm_ftree_fabric_set_rank(ftree_fabric_t * p_ftree, uint8_t rank)
> +__osm_ftree_fabric_set_rank(ftree_fabric_t * p_ftree, uint32_t rank)
>  {
>     if (rank > p_ftree->tree_rank)
>        p_ftree->tree_rank = rank;
> @@ -1314,7 +1314,7 @@ __osm_ftree_fabric_assign_first_tuple(
>     ftree_tuple_t new_tuple;
>  
>     __osm_ftree_tuple_init(new_tuple);
> -   new_tuple[0] = p_sw->rank;
> +   new_tuple[0] = (uint8_t)p_sw->rank;

Should the declaration of ftree_tuple_t change ?

>     for (i = 1; i <= p_sw->rank; i++)
>        new_tuple[i] = 0;
>  
> @@ -1374,7 +1374,7 @@ __osm_ftree_fabric_calculate_rank(
>  {
>     ftree_sw_t   * p_sw;
>     ftree_sw_t   * p_next_sw;
> -   uint16_t       max_rank = 0;
> +   uint32_t       max_rank = 0;
>  
>     /* go over all the switches and find maximal switch rank */
>