[ofa-general] SubnAdmGet (6777)

[Hal Rosenstock]

On Mon, Jun 1, 2009 at 2:41 PM, Sean Hefty <sean.hefty at intel.com> wrote:
>>No, it is correct as is (returning an error of too many records for
>>this case). See p.944:
>>
>>15.4.6 SUBNADMGET() / SUBNADMGETRESP(): GET AN ATTRIBUTE
>>
>>C15-0.1.30: Ine response to a SubnAdmGet(), if a single attribute would
>>be returned based on the access rules specified in 15.4.1 Restrictions on
>>Access on page 938 and the matching of components specified by the
>>ComponentMask, then SubAdmGetResp() shall return that attribute with
>>a zero status value.
>>
>>C15-0.1.31: If SubnAdmGet() fails to satisfy C15-0.1.30:, SubnAdmGet-
>>Resp() shall return with the status field providing the reason for failure
>>(see Table 190 SA MAD Class-Specific Status Encodings on page 900).
>
> This ignores NumbPath = 1 (or defines NumbPath differently for PR SubAdmGet
> versus SubAdmGetTable).  With NumbPath = 1, only a single attribute should be
> returned.

Yes, it is different from GetTable in that SA pares the responses down
to that but Get doesn't (have that additional language to pare them
down).

The language about NumbPath for Get was originally added to indicate
that the NumbPath was ignored on a Get even if it was included in the
component mask.

-- Hal

> - Sean
>
>