[ofa-general] Re: [ofw] Re: saquery & osm vendor IBAL - ca_names missing from osm_vendor_t ?

[Sasha Khapyorsky]

On 16:34 Mon 09 Feb     , Smith, Stan wrote:
> 
> Path of least resistance thinking would point towards not doing a switch as the vendor-ibal to vendor-ibumad would be part of the Windows OpenSM migration to OFED 1.4x OpenSM.
> My thinking is that making a switch to vendor-ibumad would be a good deal more work/involved just to get saquery working.

For just saquery it would be overkill. (BTW I posted patch which cleans
osm vendor calls from saquery - hope the problem of vendor-ibal
extending will be eliminated soon).

I was thinking about vendor switching in context of OpenSM itself - in
order to unify OpenSM/umad access layer between different systems (and
eventually to cleanup all those osm vendor mess).

> Not knowing the Windows OpenSM code base, moving part of it forward seems like a task 'which' could blossom into a good deal more work for the small return of saquery working?
> Frankly, I'd rather see work put into getting OFED OpenSM 1.4 working on Windows.

Sure, it could be done as part of WinOF OpenSM upgrade process (doing
this just for fun against outdated OpenSM codebase doesn't buy a much).

Sasha