[Fwd: Re: [openib-general] Switch SMI incoming MAD question]

Fri Oct 15 07:27:52 PDT 2004

If port_num is added to struct ib_wc, there are 2 options for this
field:

1. It is valid for switches only so that HCA drivers don't have to fill
this in. This is easier for HCA drivers and doesn't put an unnecessary
requirement on them. Also, there already are other switch or not checks
in the MAD layer (as dictated by SMI) so another one won't hurt.
or:
2. It is always filled in by the driver. This is easier for the MAD
layer as there is no special case code for this.

port_num only really needs to be set for DR SMPs. Not sure if that helps
or not.

I am going with option 1 unless I hear otherwise.

-- Hal

-----Forwarded Message-----

From: Hal Rosenstock <halr at voltaire.com>
To: openib-general at openib.org
Subject: Re: [openib-general] Switch SMI incoming MAD question
Date: 14 Oct 2004 09:21:27 -0400

On Thu, 2004-10-14 at 09:12, Hal Rosenstock wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> We added port_num into the UD send_wr structure to accomodate switches. 
> Isn't a similar thing needed for receive WCs ? The SMI needs to know
> which physical port the DR SMP came in on. If this is the case, it seems
> to me that the right thing to do to add this to the ib_mad_recv_wc
> structure.

I'm half asleep (and half right above)...

I think it needs to be added to ib_wc structure rather than
ib_mad_recv_wc structure as the incoming port that the MAD layer
receives on is not the same as the switch physical port.

-- Hal

_______________________________________________
openib-general mailing list
openib-general at openib.org
https://openib.org/mailman/listinfo/openib-general

To unsubscribe, please visit https://openib.org/mailman/listinfo/openib-general