The goal of adding the return codes was so that the rping program could exit with a status indicating success or failure. Every rping run results in a DISCONNECT event, so I don't think we want to treat that case as an error.
Also, can you explain why thi fixes Amith's problem, which sounded like a process was hanging? Thanks, Steve. On Fri, 2006-06-23 at 00:53 +0530, Pradipta Kumar Banerjee wrote: > Hi, > Please ignore the earlier mail. There were some problems with the mailer. > Here is the new one. > > This patch fixes the problem as reported by Amith. > > Signed-off-by: Pradipta Kumar Banerjee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > --- > > Index: rping.c > ============================================================================= > --- rping.c.org 2006-06-23 00:22:17.000000000 +0530 > +++ rping.c 2006-06-23 00:39:06.000000000 +0530 > @@ -215,6 +215,7 @@ static int rping_cma_event_handler(struc > case RDMA_CM_EVENT_DISCONNECTED: > fprintf(stderr, "%s DISCONNECT EVENT...\n", cb->server ? > "server" : "client"); > sem_post(&cb->sem); > + ret = -1; > break; > > case RDMA_CM_EVENT_DEVICE_REMOVAL: _______________________________________________ openib-general mailing list [email protected] http://openib.org/mailman/listinfo/openib-general To unsubscribe, please visit http://openib.org/mailman/listinfo/openib-general
