> From: Michael S. Tsirkin [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Monday, September 12, 2005 10:03 AM > > Quoting r. Fab Tillier <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > > It seems that what you really want is a way to disarm a CQ, not change the > > completion handler. > Yes, but changing the handler to an empty function looks like an easy > way to do it, without adding conditions on typical event path.
It might be worth changing the name of the function to reflect that - ib_clr_comp_handler, for example. > See the patch I posted separately. Sorry, I missed that. I'll take a look. > > Are CQs shared between sockets in SDP, or does each socket > > have its own CQ? > > Currently each socket has 2 CQs. Doesn't the verbs layer provide synchronization between CQ callbacks and CQ destruction? Why not just destroy the CQs and avoid having to change the handler? - Fab _______________________________________________ openib-general mailing list [email protected] http://openib.org/mailman/listinfo/openib-general To unsubscribe, please visit http://openib.org/mailman/listinfo/openib-general
