Mike Christie wrote: > Dev, Vasu wrote: >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: Mike Christie [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] >>> Sent: Wednesday, August 27, 2008 2:17 PM >>> To: Dev, Vasu >>> Cc: [email protected] >>> Subject: Re: [Open-FCoE] [PATCH 3/4] libfc: Added exch release >>> fc_exch_mgr_delete_ep() >>> >>> Dev, Vasu wrote: >>>>> -----Original Message----- >>>>> From: Mike Christie [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] >>>>> >>>>> Ok so now I am really lost :) See the attached patch. It looks >>>>> like if fc_seq_lookup_recip returns FC_RJT_NONE then from the >>>>> fc_exch_find call it returns from fc_seq_lookup_recip with a hold >>>>> on the ep. >>>> Correct, the ep returned from fc_seq_lookup_recip() will have one >>>> exch hold and that will be used by upper layer as explained below >>>> in detail. >>>> >>>>> So in >>>>> fc_exch_recv_req we need to just release it? >>>> The exch hold from fc_seq_lookup_recip() will be released by upper >>>> layer response handler by calling fc_exch_done() but since >>>> fc_exch_done() >> will >>> But shouldn't there be a hold from when the ep was allocated and >>> added to the mp->exches array? >> >> Yes and I was looking at that case only when fc_exch_resp() allocates >> new exchange in fc_seq_lookup_recip() and that will be most likely >> cod > > Ah I see. And I was only looking at the find paths :)
Should fc_seq_lookup_recip be split into two functions? It does two distinctly different things; Lookup an exchange and return an error if it doesn't exist, or create an exchange returing an error if it already exists. And callers already need to know which one to expect in order to get the reference counting correct. - Chris _______________________________________________ devel mailing list [email protected] http://www.open-fcoe.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
