On 7/8/08, Roland Dreier <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > Personally, I'm fine either way. This method can acquire/release the
> mutex
> > twice, though that's not a big deal. If we want better encapsulation,
> we could
> > also add a cma_enable_callback wrapper around the mutex_unlock.
>
> I was thinking about that enable wrapper too... might make everything
> easier to read. (I think the double mutex in some cases is totally
> negligible, and the clearer source more than makes up for it)
>
OK, I just want to make sure I got exactly what you have in mind:
this patch should be fixed to have a
if (cma_disable_callback(id_priv, CMA_ADDR_BOUND) &&
cma_disable_callback(id_priv, CMA_ADDR_RESOLVED))
calls in cma_ib_mc_handler and have a cma_enable_callback wrapper around
the mutex_unlock, correct?
I will be able to do that on Thursday.
the reason for the open coding in cma_ib_mc_handler was an attempt to stay
away from the compiler and avoid potential double locking of a mutex. The
reason for not having a wrapper was that for my taste it was a bit of over
doing, but I am fine with having it if this is your preference as
maintainers.
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
