***SPAM*** Re: [ofa-general] Re: [RFC] OpenSM vendor layer

[Hal Rosenstock]

On Sat, Feb 7, 2009 at 9:44 AM, Sasha Khapyorsky <sashak at voltaire.com> wrote:
> On 08:42 Sat 07 Feb     , Hal Rosenstock wrote:
>> On Sat, Feb 7, 2009 at 8:28 AM, Sasha Khapyorsky <sashak at voltaire.com> wrote:
>> > On 07:41 Sat 07 Feb     , Hal Rosenstock wrote:
>> >>
>> >> I can see cases where rather than getting all port attr, it would be
>> >> useful to get the bound port's attributes without all the rest.
>> >
>> > Then it is probably simpler just to use umad_get_port(). Why to bother
>> > with all those OpenSM vendor junks?
>>
>> Is bypassing it's vendor layer acceptable for OpenSM
>
> Sure, so it is why I asked where and for what purpose do you need pkey
> table and why is OpenSM vendor layer chosen there?
>
>> unless we are
>> going to totally remove it and go straight to umad (which I'm not
>> proposing) ?
>
> BTW, WinOF now has libibumad implemented too,

Yes, it seems pretty far along now.

> it could be an option to switch.

Could be but what about the other vendor layers ? Would we orphan those ?

-- Hal

> Sasha
>