On Wed, 2007-03-21 at 16:25, Roland Dreier wrote: > > > I guess it's OK, although I would also like to know how you plan to > > > handle the interaction between IsSM and IsSMDisabled -- eg what if a > > > process opens issm0 and then another process tries to open > > > issmdisabled0? Or conversely if issmdisabled0 is open, what happens > > > when someone opens issm0? > > > > I would think those are error cases. Does that make sense ? If so, what > > error makes most sense ? EINVAL or something else ? > > That's not really in keeping with the current interface. Right now if > one process opens issm0 and then a second process tries to open, the > second process blocks until the first one closes the file. Would it > make more sense to make the issmdisabled interface work in a similar > way, i.e. only one of issm and issmdisabled can be open at any time, > and an attempt to open both would block the second attempt?
Sure; it could work that way too. I'll work on a patch for this over the next couple days. -- Hal _______________________________________________ general mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openfabrics.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/general To unsubscribe, please visit http://openib.org/mailman/listinfo/openib-general
