Quoting r. Sean Hefty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > Subject: Re: RDMA Generic Connection Management > > Michael S. Tsirkin wrote: > >How is this different from what we have with ib_verbs now? > > With ib_verbs, users receive notification of device addition/removal. > This interface doesn't require receiving that notification.
Wont users also activate verbs directly anyway, and so be required to handle this notification? > >I think that reasonable ULPs must register for hotplug events > >in the ib layer, anyway. > >So when they get a device removal callback, they close the qps etc. > > > >Makes sense? > > This opens up the possibility for a user to receive a reference to a > device that they may not have received previous notification for. We seem to have that with verbs, dont we? > Similarly, the device could have been removed before the call returned, I thought ULP gets a notification *before* device removal, not after this, so it can synchronise that, addrss resolution, and verb calls. > making the pointer invalid. The problem probably can be solved by taking the appropriate semaphore, can it not? -- MST _______________________________________________ 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