[ofa-general] RE: [PATCH] CMA: Enable conn_id remove

[Or Gerlitz]

On 12/4/07, Sean Hefty <sean.hefty at intel.com> wrote:
> >I saw that the 'dev_remove' counter does not reach 0 value on the passive side
> >(after connection establishment).

> >CMA: Enable conn_id remove on the passive side after
> >connection establishment.

> This looks correct to me, but I'd like to understand why we don't see problems
> more often.

Sean,

Can you elaborate more on the problem here? it sounds like a general
one so I don't see
the relation to RDS, why it does not happen all the time with all the ULPs?

Or.