On Mon, 01 Nov 2004 07:27:27 -0800
Roland Dreier <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hal> So should this patch be applied or is it superceeded by your
> Hal> pending patch (and I should wait for that) ?
>
> sounds like the patch is not needed and actively breaks things, so my
> guess would be th
Hal> So should this patch be applied or is it superceeded by your
Hal> pending patch (and I should wait for that) ?
sounds like the patch is not needed and actively breaks things, so my
guess would be that it's better not to apply.
- R.
___
ope
On Fri, 2004-10-29 at 20:09, Sean Hefty wrote:
> On Fri, 29 Oct 2004 18:06:47 -0600
> Shirley Ma <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > Here is the patch.
>
> Note that my patch removes the lock when calling ib_post_send. But,
> holding the lock when calling ib_post_send() should be fine. Also, the
>
On Fri, 29 Oct 2004 18:06:47 -0600
Shirley Ma <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Here is the patch.
Note that my patch removes the lock when calling ib_post_send. But,
holding the lock when calling ib_post_send() should be fine. Also, the
current completion code assumes that the work requests are que
it's perfectly fine to call ib_post_send() from any context, including
with spinlocks held.
- R.
___
openib-general mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://openib.org/mailman/listinfo/openib-general
To unsubscribe, please visit http://openib.org/mailman/
Here is the patch.
thanks
Shirley Ma
IBM Linux Technology Center
15300 SW Koll Parkway
Beaverton, OR 97006-6063
Phone: (503) 578-7638
FAX: (503) 578-3228
access.mad1.patch
Description: Binary data
___
openib-general mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECT
