Tom Tucker wrote:
The iw_event_handler is registered with the provider by the IW CM. The
iw_cm_handler is registerd with the IW CM by the client. So when the
provider generates an event, it is delivered to the event_handler. When
the IW CM generates an event, it is delivered to the cm_handler. I guess
the comments aren't particularly helpful.
The comments make more sense now. I need to understand how one of the callbacks
can make use of a returned int, while the other is a void.
The provider_id is the 'cookie' generated by the provider that uniquely
identifies this connection and is passed down to the HW by the provider.
The client doesn't use it. BTW, the alternative here is to have a
create_cm_id and destroy_cm_id call in the provider. I opted for the
'cookie'.
None of the other core code makes use of a cookie that I'm aware of, so it's
worth nothing that there's inconsistency with the rest of the stack. I'm not as
concerned about that as making sure that destruction is handled properly, since
there's not a destroy call in the provider.
Maybe the provider_id and the event_handler should probably be in
private portion of the data structure.
That would provide for clearer encapsulation.
- 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
