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

[Smith, Stan]

Sasha Khapyorsky wrote:
> 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).

Thank you very much! Yes your new saquery patches will eliminate the vendor-ibal issues and any proposed vendor-ibal mods.

Stan.

>
> 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 this just for fun against outdated OpenSM codebase doesn't buy a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