On Fri, 2005-05-06 at 13:30 -0400, James Lentini wrote: > Tom, > > There were two changes in this patch: > > - check for a NULL comm_id pointer > - add error returns > > My understanding of the subsequent discussion is that: > > - we should not have been using the comm_id->state value. We should > have been using the event->event value instead > > - if we return a non 0 error code, our CM ID will be destroyed > > Given those pieces of information: > > Do we still want to check for a NULL comm_id pointer? > Should we always return 0 from this function? > > I think the answer is yes to both of the above, but I want to make > sure there is consensus.
My patch was wrong as pointed out. The panic I saw did have a NULL comm_id. I am not sure how this happened. Apparently, this function should never be called with a null pointer. -tduffy
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
_______________________________________________ openib-general mailing list [email protected] http://openib.org/mailman/listinfo/openib-general To unsubscribe, please visit http://openib.org/mailman/listinfo/openib-general
