On Wed, 2006-06-14 at 14:27, Sean Hefty wrote: > Michael S. Tsirkin wrote: > > Another concern with this approach: consider an application that accepts > > incoming MAD requests and drops some of them. With current code it can do > > this > > safely and remote side will retry. With the duplicate tracking in umad > > module > > that you propose, MAD will stay in the list forever, and application will > > never > > again get called. > > This is why I proposed a timeout for responses. > > > This kind of subtle behaviour change seems to me worse than outright ABI > > breakage. > > If everyone is okay with breaking the ABI, then I would add send completion > notification to umad, and put the responsibility on callers not to generate > duplicate responses.
Is this a better architectural solution ? I'm not sure I totally understand what the new ABI would be and its impact on existing applications. Is there an example of what this might look like ? -- Hal > - 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 > _______________________________________________ openib-general mailing list [email protected] http://openib.org/mailman/listinfo/openib-general To unsubscribe, please visit http://openib.org/mailman/listinfo/openib-general
