Quoting r. Sean Hefty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > I think that the real issue here is that the CMA determines whether to hand > the REP to the user based on if it has a QP. This was done to support > userspace. SDP wants the CMA to manage its QP, but still wants to see the > REP.
I'm a bit confused. What we currently have is that CMA passes ESTABLISHED event to SDP on REP. If so I think we can leave it as it is. > What I need to determine is if it's easier/better for SDP to manage > the QP itself, or to change the CMA to expose the REP when it manages the > QP states. I actually think all we have to do is to change CMA behaviour on REP: send RTU after, and not before, calling user handler. Since other ULPs don't seem t care when RTU is sent, they will continue working. No? -- MST _______________________________________________ openib-general mailing list [email protected] http://openib.org/mailman/listinfo/openib-general To unsubscribe, please visit http://openib.org/mailman/listinfo/openib-general
