On Mon, 12 Sep 2005, Sean Hefty wrote:
> James Lentini wrote: > > The purpose of this function would be more obvious if you included the new > > comp_handler and cq_contex in the function signature. A different name would > > help as well. > > I would suggest: > > > > void ib_modify_cq(struct ib_cq *cq, void > > (*event_handler)(struct > > ib_event *, void *), > > void *cq_context); > > I think that this makes more sense. It keeps the synchronization > internal to the verbs layer, and prevents the user from overwriting > the event_handler at the same time that it may be read by the hca > driver. Can we rely on a write to the cq->event_handler being > atomic wrt a read of the same value? Along those same lines, we should also ensure that when both the event_handler and cq_context are changed at the same time, the update is atomic. james _______________________________________________ openib-general mailing list [email protected] http://openib.org/mailman/listinfo/openib-general To unsubscribe, please visit http://openib.org/mailman/listinfo/openib-general
