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

Ira Weiny weiny2 at llnl.gov
Mon Feb 2 15:06:58 PST 2009

On Mon, 2 Feb 2009 14:51:56 -0800
"Sean Hefty" <sean.hefty at intel.com> wrote:

> >>4) saquery.c is the only diags pgms (so far) which uses OpenSM MAD interfaces;
> >>the rest use libibmad.
> Looking briefly at the saquery code, I don't understand the benefit to using the
> opensm vendor interfaces, versus using libibmad or even libibumad directly, and
> switching to libibumad looks doable.  (It's not clear to me that there are
> benefits to using libibmad over libibumad for saquery.)
> - osm_bind_handle_t looks like it could map to a libibumad port_id (int).
> - osmv_query_sa() could map to umad_send(), followed by umad_recv() to
>   obtain the result.  (Replace osmv_query_sa with a new function.)
> - There are a couple other calls that are used to loop through all returned
>   attributes in a response MAD.  We could use the MAD attribute offset
>   directly.  (Update loops where osmv_get_query_* is called.)
> Are there technical reasons why the opensm vendor library was chosen for
> saquery?  Would there be any objection to changing saquery to use libibumad
> directly?  

I don't remember the exact details but at the time saquery was first written, 
ibmad/ibumad did not have all the functionality I needed and the OpenSM vendor
library did.  That may no longer be the case and if not then I would support
converting to using those other libraries.


> - Sean
> _______________________________________________
> general mailing list
> general at lists.openfabrics.org
> http:// lists.openfabrics.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/general
> To unsubscribe, please visit http:// openib.org/mailman/listinfo/openib-general

More information about the ofw mailing list