On Mon, 04 Oct 2004 11:53:21 -0400 Hal Rosenstock <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> It is a minor efficiency gain. The downside is the following: > If the client sets the hi_tid wrong (not corresponding to the mad_agent > supplied), the response either gets thrown away (if there is no hi_tid > match) or delivered to the "wrong" client callback. > > A "similar" scenario exists when the client specifies a timeout and the > send is "unsolicited". In this case, the send although never getting a > response is timed out and not completed until then. It could be > completed when the send completion occurs ignoring the timeout. I don't have strong feelings on this either way. What I'd like to avoid is pushing too much protocol knowledge into the access layer for a given management class. Some of it is difficult to avoid and still provide some useful functionality. As an example, a CM REP MAD is solicited. The access layer shouldn't modify the TID, but it makes sense for the user to specify a timeout value. - Sean _______________________________________________ openib-general mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://openib.org/mailman/listinfo/openib-general To unsubscribe, please visit http://openib.org/mailman/listinfo/openib-general
