opensm: update internal PortInfo state for any ports
PATCH 1/1 opensm: update internal PortInfo state for any ports
Should not be matter to keep internal SM's PortInfo data for ports in any states.
opensm/osm_port.c +12 -21
@@ -669,25 +669,16 @@ void osm_physp_set_port_info(IN osm_physp_t * p_physp,CL_ASSERT (p_pi);CL_ASSERT (osm_physp_is_valid (p_physp)); -if (ib_port_info_get_port_state (p_pi) ==IB_LINK_DOWN ) { -/* If PortState is down, only copy PortState */ -/* and PortPhysicalState per C14-24-2.1 */ -ib_port_info_set_port_state (&p_physp->port_info,IB_LINK_DOWN ); -ib_port_info_set_port_phys_state - (ib_port_info_get_port_phys_state (p_pi), - &p_physp->port_info); - }else { - p_physp->port_info = *p_pi; - -/* The MKey in p_pi can only be considered valid if it's -* for a HCA/router or switch port 0, and it's either -* non-zero or the MKeyProtect bits are also zero. -*/ -if ((osm_node_get_type (p_physp->p_node) != -IB_NODE_TYPE_SWITCH || p_physp->port_num ==0 ) && - (p_pi->m_key !=0 ||ib_port_info_get_mpb (p_pi) ==0 )) -osm_db_guid2mkey_set (p_sm->p_subn->p_g2m, -cl_ntoh64 (p_physp->port_guid), -cl_ntoh64 (p_pi->m_key)); - } + p_physp->port_info = *p_pi; + +/* The MKey in p_pi can only be considered valid if it's +* for a HCA/router or switch port 0, and it's either +* non-zero or the MKeyProtect bits are also zero. +*/ +if ((osm_node_get_type (p_physp->p_node) !=IB_NODE_TYPE_SWITCH || + p_physp->port_num ==0 ) && + (p_pi->m_key !=0 ||ib_port_info_get_mpb (p_pi) ==0 )) +osm_db_guid2mkey_set (p_sm->p_subn->p_g2m, +cl_ntoh64 (p_physp->port_guid), +cl_ntoh64 (p_pi->m_key)); }
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-rdma" in the body of a message to [email protected] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Quoted 2 lines · Sasha Khapyorsky
Should not be matter to keep internal SM's PortInfo data for ports in any states.
What difference does it make ? Does this patch fix some operational issue ? Is there any harm in not keeping the complete PortInfo when port is DOWN ?
At worst, the current implementation is a minor efficiency improvement:
to only copy the 2 required to be valid fields rather than all 64 bytes in PortInfo. Also, it seems safer to only save the guaranteed valid fields.
-- Hal
Quoted 36 lines
Signed-off-by Sasha Khapyorsky <[email protected]>opensm/osm_port.c +3
-21@@ -669,25 +669,16 @@ void osm_physp_set_port_info(IN osm_physp_t * p_physp,CL_ASSERT (p_pi);CL_ASSERT (osm_physp_is_valid (p_physp)); -if (ib_port_info_get_port_state (p_pi) ==IB_LINK_DOWN ) { -/* If PortState is down, only copy PortState */ -/* and PortPhysicalState per C14-24-2.1 */ -ib_port_info_set_port_state (&p_physp->port_info,IB_LINK_DOWN ); -ib_port_info_set_port_phys_state - (ib_port_info_get_port_phys_state (p_pi), - &p_physp->port_info); - }else { - p_physp->port_info = *p_pi; - -/* The MKey in p_pi can only be considered valid if it's -* for a HCA/router or switch port 0, and it's either -* non-zero or the MKeyProtect bits are also zero. -*/ -if ((osm_node_get_type (p_physp->p_node) != -IB_NODE_TYPE_SWITCH || p_physp->port_num ==0 ) && - (p_pi->m_key !=0 ||ib_port_info_get_mpb (p_pi) ==0 )) -osm_db_guid2mkey_set (p_sm->p_subn->p_g2m, -cl_ntoh64 (p_physp->port_guid), -cl_ntoh64 (p_pi->m_key)); - } + p_physp->port_info = *p_pi; + +/* The MKey in p_pi can only be considered valid if it's
opensm/osm_port.c void osm_physp_set_port_info(IN osm_physp_t * p_physp, · line 684
Quoted 10 lines
opensm/osm_port.c +9
-0+* for a HCA/router or switch port 0, and it's either +* non-zero or the MKeyProtect bits are also zero. +*/ +if ((osm_node_get_type (p_physp->p_node) !=IB_NODE_TYPE_SWITCH || + p_physp->port_num ==0 ) && + (p_pi->m_key !=0 ||ib_port_info_get_mpb (p_pi) ==0 )) +osm_db_guid2mkey_set (p_sm->p_subn->p_g2m, +cl_ntoh64 (p_physp->port_guid), +cl_ntoh64 (p_pi->m_key)); }
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-rdma" in the body of a message to [email protected] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Hi Hal,
Quoted 4 lines · Hal Rosenstock
What difference does it make ? Does this patch fix some operational issue ? Is there any harm in not keeping the complete PortInfo when port is DOWN ?
AFAIK it doesn't harm in the current state. However, I'm prepering the patches, which will let to OpenSM work on stand alone port. For such mode this fix is critical.
Will recent with other patches shortly.
Sasha
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-rdma" in the body of a message to [email protected] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Hi Sasha,
Quoted 11 lines · Sasha Khapyorsky
Hi Hal,
Quoted 4 lines · Hal Rosenstock
What difference does it make ? Does this patch fix some operational issue ? Is there any harm in not keeping the complete PortInfo when port is DOWN ?
AFAIK it doesn't harm in the current state. However, I'm prepering the patches, which will let to OpenSM work on stand alone port. For such mode this fix is critical.
Why is it critical for this set of patches ? I'm still missing why that's required for supporting single port sweep (so loopback connections still work). What PortInfo fields are really needed ?
-- Hal
Quoted 5 lines
Will recent with other patches shortly.
Sasha
.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-rdma" in the body of a message to [email protected] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html