>Actually, it gets a bit messier, since the get_event call would needs an extra >input parameter to identify which CM ID to perform the operation on. This is a >pretty significant semantic change since an application with many connections >will now need to make many get_event calls, one for each CM ID it wants events >from. Unless the get_event operation can work asynchronously, this requires a >thread per CM ID, which sucks.
I don't think that we'd want to add the cm_id to the get_event routine. Get_event() could always take the reference on the cm_id before invoking the callback. The uCM would then be responsible for verifying that events are for existing cm_id's, rather than the users doing the check. Hmm... I think that this will still require some more thought. Maybe one way to handle this is to have destruction flush events first, then perform the actual destroy... - 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
