[ofa-general] Re: OSM_DEFAULT_SM_KEY byte order

[Sasha Khapyorsky]

On 07:06 Mon 02 Jun     , Hal Rosenstock wrote:
> 
> This came from informal interop testing a while ago. It wasn't invented
> out of thin air.

IMHO there are not enough information about the case - finally the value
of OSM_DEFAULT_SM_KEY was host byte order (which is obviously wrong), so
it doesn't look for me that the case was fully analyzed.

> > Our own backward compatibility could be solved by configuring sm key
> > (this will work with OpenSM and saquery).
> > 
> > Another opinions?
> 
> I think that third party SMs are a side issue as this is not sanctioned
> by IBTA and there is other evidence of a vendor SM using SM key.
> 
> To me, key is back interop with older OpenSMs (at least for x86 as that
> is the larger part of the installed base) and this is the aspect which
> is sanctioned by IBTA.

SM_Key value is configurable in OpenSM so we don't really break
interoperability. And in longer term '1' seems as much more "friendly"
value than '0x0100000000000000', which entered OpenSM code by mistake.

Sasha