[openib-general] Re: [PATCH 3/3] iWARP CM

[Tom Tucker]

On Thu, 2006-03-16 at 13:16 -0800, Sean Hefty wrote:
> >The bottom line requirement is that state transitions are
> >atomic. As long as you know that at most one entity transitions
> >the QP out of the Established state everything should work.
> 
> I'll buy this.  My comments and questions are just trying to make sure that I
> understand everything that's happening, especially in areas where there's the
> potential for a bug, more than there's a real issue.  For example, is there any
> potential that the state could be driven two directions, with the resulting
> state unknown?
> 
The comments are welcome and good. I'm working on a patch that resolves
the last run through. I'll send it tomorrow. Thanks,
> - Sean