On Fri, 2004-10-01 at 12:41, Sean Hefty wrote: > On Fri, 01 Oct 2004 12:33:44 -0400 > Hal Rosenstock <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > 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 think we can wait on RMPP. > 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'm wasn't sure if we wanted to use a doubly linked list or singly linked one for > this. This isn't just for RMPP; it's needed to free the receive buffers correctly. I'm not sure either and have used doubly linked lists everywhere although I too think that singly linked ones would suffice. > > 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. I will test this without timeouts first and then retest when timeouts are implemented. -- Hal _______________________________________________ openib-general mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://openib.org/mailman/listinfo/openib-general To unsubscribe, please visit http://openib.org/mailman/listinfo/openib-general
