On Tue, Feb 22, 2005 at 12:57:00PM -0800, Tom Duffy wrote:
> On Tue, 2005-02-22 at 12:20 -0800, Libor Michalek wrote:
> >   Thanks Tom, I've applied and commited the patches.
> 
> Did you choose not to apply these changes, or was this a simple
> oversight?

  Yup, it was an oversight. I had to hand apply some of the patches
that failed, becasue of the connection lock name change patch I had
made. Thanks for catching it, I've checked them in now.

-Libor

> Index: sdp_inet.c
> ===================================================================
> --- sdp_inet.c        (revision 1865)
> +++ sdp_inet.c        (working copy)
> @@ -410,7 +410,6 @@ static int _sdp_inet_release(struct sock
>  
>                       while (0 < timeout &&
>                              0 == (SDP_ST_MASK_CLOSED & conn->istate)) {
> -
>                               sdp_conn_unlock(conn);
>                               timeout = schedule_timeout(timeout);
>                               sdp_conn_lock(conn);
> @@ -522,7 +521,6 @@ static int _sdp_inet_bind(struct socket 
>  
>       result = sdp_inet_port_get(conn, bind_port);
>       if (0 > result) {
> -
>               sdp_dbg_warn(conn, "Error <%d> getting port during bind",
>                            result);
>  
> @@ -1174,7 +1172,6 @@ static int _sdp_inet_ioctl(struct socket
>               sdp_conn_lock(conn);
>  
>               if (SDP_SOCK_ST_LISTEN != conn->istate) {
> -
>                       value = conn->send_qud;
>                       result = put_user(value, (int __user *) arg);
>               } else
> Index: sdp_event.c
> ===================================================================
> --- sdp_event.c       (revision 1865)
> +++ sdp_event.c       (working copy)
> @@ -512,44 +512,32 @@ int sdp_cm_event_handler(struct ib_cm_id
>        * lookup the connection, on a REQ_RECV the sk will be empty.
>        */
>       conn = sdp_conn_table_lookup(hashent);
> -     if (NULL != conn) {
> -
> +     if (NULL != conn)
>               sdp_conn_lock(conn);
> -     }
> -     else {
> -
> -             if (IB_CM_REQ_RCVD != cm_id->state) {
> -
> +     else
> +             if (IB_CM_REQ_RCVD != cm_id->state)
>                       sdp_dbg_warn(NULL, 
>                                    "No conn <%d> CM state <%d> event <%d>",
>                                    hashent, cm_id->state, event->event);
> -             }
> -     }
>  
>       switch (cm_id->state) {
>       case IB_CM_REQ_RCVD:
> -
>               result = sdp_cm_req_handler(cm_id, event);
>               break;
>       case IB_CM_REP_RCVD:
> -
>               result = sdp_cm_rep_handler(cm_id, event, conn);
>               break;
>       case IB_CM_IDLE:
> -
>               result = _sdp_cm_idle(cm_id, event, conn);
>               break;
>       case IB_CM_ESTABLISHED:
> -
>               result = _sdp_cm_established(cm_id, event, conn);
>               break;
>       case IB_CM_DREQ_RCVD:
>       case IB_CM_TIMEWAIT:
> -
>               result = _sdp_cm_timewait(cm_id, event, conn);
>               break;
>       default:
> -
>               sdp_dbg_warn(conn, "Unexpected CM state <%d>", cm_id->state);
>               result = -EINVAL;
>       }
_______________________________________________
openib-general mailing list
openib-general@openib.org
http://openib.org/mailman/listinfo/openib-general

To unsubscribe, please visit http://openib.org/mailman/listinfo/openib-general

Reply via email to