> 1. Do not understand the usage and purpose of recv_count (something new that > you have introduced). Can you please explain. However, the suspicion being > that if somehow the if clause is executed, the rx_ring gets freed and so > all the skb pointers are bogus. I have commented out this segment of code.
We need to keep track of the number of pending receives on a QP so that we wait until all have been flushed before destroying the QP. recv_count starts at ipoib_recvq_size and is decremented every time we get an error completion and don't repost the receive, and when it reaches 0 we move the QP to the reap list. > 2. The call to ipoib_cm_alloc_rx_skb() in ipoib_cm_handle_rx_wc() uses an > index value of 0 (hard coded) which is incorrect for no srq. I have changed > that to index instead. Yes, I saw that and fixed it. Actually I finished rewriting things so that there is no more index and no static table any more. I haven't posted the patches yet because I wanted to read it over a little more, but if you re-pull my for-2.6.25 branch you will get them. I have a feeling that this second bug might be the cause of the problems you are seeing. - R. _______________________________________________ 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
