On 14:03 Sun 23 Nov , Yevgeny Kliteynik wrote: > Sasha, > > Sasha Khapyorsky wrote: >> Hi Yevgeny, >> On 14:46 Thu 20 Nov , Yevgeny Kliteynik wrote: >>> I can do something like the following patch, but I have >>> some strange feeling that I'm missing something... >> I cannot see any errors here. But probably you can use simpler approach >> - just cleanup all switch's lft_buf separately after ucast_mgr is >> finished (including wait_for_pending_transactions()). > > I've been doing some thinking... > Basically, what you're saying is that at the end of each and > every heavy sweep you will free ALL the lft_buf arrays, unless > there was some error, that should trigger a new heavy sweep > anyway. So what's the point of having lft_buf in the first place? > > It was relevant in the beginning of ucast cache implementation, > but now after all the lft simplifications, I don't see how it > is used. Am I missing something here, or should we just remove > all these lft_buf and go back to single ucast_mgr_t.lft_buf?
As far as I remember it was your idea to use newly generated lft_buf in cache regarless to the state of current LFTs. No? Also we have strange bug#1406 yet... Sasha _______________________________________________ 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
