On Fri, 01 Oct 2004 12:33:44 -0400
Hal Rosenstock <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> mad_send_wr->tid = ((struct ib_mad_hdr*)
> bus_to_virt(cur_send_wr->sg_list->addr))->tid;
Thanks - good catch.
> 2. Added the following to reassemble_recv (it was eliminated from
> ib_mad_recv_done_handler):
>
> INIT_LIST_HEAD(&recv->header.recv_buf.list);
I was going to get back to RMPP handling. I'm wasn't sure if we wanted to use a
doubly linked list or singly linked one for this.
> Also, should the TID be overwritten in the high 32 bits or do we trust
> the client to set this properly ?
Based on our previous discussions on this, clients are responsible for setting the
upper 32-bits of the TID correctly. This should be more efficient, and only requires
to use the TID provided through registration.
> Note that I only validated an incoming request and have not tested the
> request/response matching as yet.
We may want to delay testing of this until I can get the timeout code added.
_______________________________________________
openib-general mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://openib.org/mailman/listinfo/openib-general
To unsubscribe, please visit http://openib.org/mailman/listinfo/openib-general
