[ofa-general] Re: OSM_DEFAULT_SM_KEY byte order

[Sasha Khapyorsky]

On 07:52 Thu 22 May     , Hal Rosenstock wrote:
> > +#define OSM_DEFAULT_SM_KEY CL_HTON64(1)
> >  /********/
> >  /****s* OpenSM: Base/OSM_DEFAULT_LMC
> >  * NAME
> > 
> > 
> > , but sort of backward compatibility (currently I know that
> > OSM_DEFAULT_SM_KEY is used with 'osmtest' and 'saquery') could be lost.
> > Is this so important? Ideas?
> 
> IMO yes, I think this breaks both backward compatibility and what was
> actually observed from some other SMs during interop testing.
> 
> I agree it needs fixing but I think the proper thing is probably more
> like:
> 
> #define OSM_DEFAULT_SM_KEY CL_HTON64(0x0100000000000000);

Using value like this we will break on big endian machines where
originally the value is correct. I think that '1' in network byte order
is better (especially in long term) - it is more "native" non-zero
value. Also I found at least one vendor SM which uses 1 as default SM
key in network byte order (and this is expected, I doubt somebody uses
0x0100000000000000).

Our own backward compatibility could be solved by configuring sm key
(this will work with OpenSM and saquery).

Another opinions?

Sasha