[ofa-general] ***SPAM*** ibdm network topology format

[Sasha Khapyorsky]

Hi Hal,

On 10:18 Thu 02 Oct     , Hal Rosenstock wrote:
> >
> > 2. ibis doesn't register class 0x81 - SM direct routed, only SM lid
> > routed (0x1). In comment in ibutils/ibis/src/ibsm.c line 118 is stated:
> >
> >  /* no need to bind the Directed Route class as it will automatically
> >     be handled by the osm_vendor_bind if asked for LID route */
> >
> > As far as I can see in osm_vendor_bind() it is not (but it is in
> > opposite order - when class 0x81 is registered class 0x1 will be
> > registered too).
> 
> Yes that is what osm_vendor_ibumad.c:osm_vendor_bind does.
> 
> So either ibdiagnet needs to register 0x81 r.t.1 or
> osm_vendor_ibumad.c:osm_vendor_bind needs to be "symmetric" in terms
> of registering the other SM class when only one is requested. This is
> a minor change in the underlying semantics. [Popping up a level in
> terms of this, (other than applications taking advantage of this
> "feature",) I'm not sure why the vendor layer should assume that just
> because one SM class is requested, the other should be too].  I just
> looked and the latter appears to be consistent with the other vendor
> layers. I think either solution will work. Your solution below also
> looks like it would work but don't that should be done in a sim layer.

I'm not like this "solution" too, but the fact that ibis works with real
stack without registering 0x81 class is unclear for me.

> > Somehow it works without ibsim - so I suspect user_mad handles it.
> >
> > (Hal, could you clarify?)
> 
> The kernel (user_mad/mad) does not change the requested registrations
> but I'm not sure I understand the question you are asking to be
> clarified. Is that what you're asking ?

ibis works somehow with real stack. It registers 0x1 class only and
uses direct routing SMPs. Do you have any idea about why
(osm_vendor_idumad and/or libibumad don't help)?

Sasha