I guess that your suggestion is right but since I don't want to make a revolution, I'll continue with this checkin. We probably need to do the separation to a different APM state, but this is a much bigger change.
Applied in 2486. Thanks Tzachi > -----Original Message----- > From: Sean Hefty [mailto:[email protected]] > Sent: Thursday, October 15, 2009 6:34 AM > To: Tzachi Dar; [email protected] > Subject: RE: [ofw] patch: [ibal] Allow cm to send a lap > request after afailed (by timeout) lap request. > > >Index: > Q:/projMLNX_WinOF_2.0/MLNX_WinOF_2-0/core/al/kernel/al_cm_cep.c > >=================================================================== > >--- Q:/projMLNX_WinOF_2.0/MLNX_WinOF_2-0/core/al/kernel/al_cm_cep.c > >(revision > >4956) > >+++ Q:/projMLNX_WinOF_2.0/MLNX_WinOF_2-0/core/al/kernel/al_cm_cep.c > >+++ (revision > >4957) > >@@ -2289,7 +2289,15 @@ > > __format_drep( p_cep, NULL, 0, &p_cep->mads.drep ); > > p_cep->state = CEP_STATE_TIMEWAIT; > > __insert_timewait( p_cep ); > >+ break; > > > >+ case CEP_STATE_LAP_SENT: > >+ /* > >+ * Before CEP was sent, we have been in > CEP_STATE_ESTABLISHED as we > >+ * failed to send, we return to that state. > >+ */ > >+ p_cep->state = CEP_STATE_ESTABLISHED; > >+ break; > > default: > > break; > > } > > I think it would be easier to track APM states separately > from the CEP state. > The CEP states should match that in the spec (12.9). > > _______________________________________________ ofw mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openfabrics.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ofw
