On 4/28/2016 10:34 PM, Doug Ledford wrote:
> On 04/27/2016 02:42 AM, Leon Romanovsky wrote:
>> On Tue, Apr 26, 2016 at 08:57:08PM +0000, Hefty, Sean wrote:
>>>>> +* There are 4 types of join states:
>>>>> +* FullMember, NonMember, SendOnlyNonMember, SendOnlyFullMember.
>>>>> +*/
>>>>> +enum {
>>>>> + FULLMEMBER_JOIN,
>>>>> + NONMEMBER_JOIN,
>>>>> + SENDONLY_NONMEBER_JOIN,
>>>>> + SENDONLY_FULLMEMBER_JOIN,
>>>>> + NUM_JOIN_MEMBERSHIP_TYPES = 4
>>>
>>> These seem better suited as flags -- fullmember (y/n), sendonly (y/n)
>>
>> Thanks, excellent point.
>
> This doesn't seem to make any sense to me. Without going back and
> re-reading this part of the spec, as I recall, there is:
>
> UnJoined
> SendOnly Join
> Full Join
>
> You can never have a SendOnly_FullMember join. Once you are FullMember,
> you are no longer SendOnly.
>
> Is a NonMember (assuming here that NonMember is referring to what the CA
> is listed as according to the SM) even allowed to join, either as
> SendOnly or FullMember? I would have thought if the SM listed that CA
> as a NonMember, that any joins would be flat rejected and NonMember join
> states wouldn't make any sense.
There is now a new SendOnlyFullMember option added by IBTA MgtWG post
IBA 1.3.
-- Hal
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-rdma" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
