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

[Sasha Khapyorsky]

On 15:55 Mon 09 Feb     , Sean Hefty wrote:
> >Assuming WinOF already has libibumad implementation with preserved API
> >would it be reasonable to switch from vendor-ibal to vendor-ibumad in
> >WinOF?
> 
> WinOF does have a libibumad implementation, plus libibmad ports between the two
> platforms.  The saquery code needs structure definitions for the various
> attributes, so using libibmad may be a better choice.

I agree, for "saquery" specific case it is better to cleanup osm_vendor
there (as we discussed already). My question above was about OpenSM
itself, not for purpose of saquery serving.

> Changing saquery didn't
> look that hard to me, but it did look like it would modify a fair portion of the
> code.

I guess so.

Sasha