[openib-general] Re: fixes to the udapl ucm/uat patch you sent

[James Lentini]

On Tue, 2 Aug 2005, Arlin Davis wrote:

>> dapl_evd_wait:
>> 
>> I looked over the original implementation of dapl_evd_wait() with an eye 
>> towards the situation you described (the caller polling and finding fewer 
>> events than requested, the caller going to turn on notification, an event 
>> occuring, the caller turning on notification, the caller blocking unaware 
>> of the last event). I don't believe that this would happen in the original 
>> implementation. Here's why: after the caller turns on notification, the 
>> code loops, via the continue statement on line 213, back to the begining of 
>> the for loop on line 173 and repolls. Do you agree?
>
> Hmmm. Yes it appears to be correct now that I take another look at it. Ok, 
> ignore the patch for now and I will take another look
> at the senario that was missing the completions. On a side note, does this 
> call need to adjust the time if coming out of a wait but still not reaching 
> threshold and going back into a subsequent wait?

Yes. That is broken. Good catch.