Sean Hefty wrote:
>> Does this patch protects against the case where an rdma_cm_id is being
>> destructed while address resolution related to the **same** id attaches
>> it to a device?
>>
>> If yes, why does someone destroys this id? is it legal to do so?
>
> Yes - this protects against the user destroying the id while that same id is
> being attached to a device. This is legal. The user may want to cancel
> address
> resolution by destroying the rdma_cm_id.
ok, thanks for clarifying that, is cancellation allowed only for address
resolution or also for route resolving and/or CM calls? also how about
documenting this?
Or.
diff --git a/include/rdma/rdma_cm.h b/include/rdma/rdma_cm.h
index 402c63d..b9e22c8 100644
--- a/include/rdma/rdma_cm.h
+++ b/include/rdma/rdma_cm.h
@@ -117,6 +117,14 @@ struct rdma_cm_id {
struct rdma_cm_id *rdma_create_id(rdma_cm_event_handler event_handler,
void *context, enum rdma_port_space ps);
+/**
+ * rdma_destroy_id - Destroys an RDMA identifier.
+ *
+ * @id: RDMA identifier.
+ *
+ * Note: calling this function has the effect of canceling in-flight
+ * asynchronous operations associated with the id.
+ */
void rdma_destroy_id(struct rdma_cm_id *id);
/**
_______________________________________________
openib-general mailing list
[email protected]
http://openib.org/mailman/listinfo/openib-general
To unsubscribe, please visit http://openib.org/mailman/listinfo/openib-general
