Sean Hefty wrote:
I thought about this, and I agree that it's worth exploring. The locking to
support device removal ended up being fairly complex. (I'm not sure it would
have been any easier for ULPs to do this though.) The main counter I see to
using a separate channel is that device removal is invoked per rdma_cm_id, so
there's precedence for invoking the callback per id.
My expectation is that this is a rare event.
Sean, Steve,
Yes, this is rare event. I have stated at the [v2 0/5] email posting why
I prefer this to be ID affiliated event, will be glad to hear your
feedback on my arguments.
Or.
_______________________________________________
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
