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

[Hal Rosenstock]

On Sat, Feb 7, 2009 at 12:02 PM, Sasha Khapyorsky <sashak at voltaire.com> wrote:
> On 10:27 Sat 07 Feb     , Hal Rosenstock wrote:
>> >> 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 ?
>
> Who needs this really,

AFAIK the carrying along of these came from Mellanox. If they no
longer need these and Windows is ready to switch over officially to
umad, then I don't see an issue.

> it is broken long time anyway.

What are you referring to as broken here ?

-- Hal

> Sasha
>