[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> On Tue, 2006-06-13 at 16:46 -0500, Steve Wise wrote:
>> On Tue, 2006-06-13 at 14:36 -0700, Sean Hefty wrote:
> Er...no. It will lose this event. Depending on the event...the
> carnage varies. We'll take a look at this.
>
This behavior is consistent
On Tue, 2006-06-13 at 16:46 -0500, Steve Wise wrote:
> On Tue, 2006-06-13 at 14:36 -0700, Sean Hefty wrote:
> > >> Er...no. It will lose this event. Depending on the event...the carnage
> > >> varies. We'll take a look at this.
> > >>
> > >
> > >This behavior is consistent with the Infiniband CM (s
On Tue, 2006-06-13 at 14:36 -0700, Sean Hefty wrote:
> >> Er...no. It will lose this event. Depending on the event...the carnage
> >> varies. We'll take a look at this.
> >>
> >
> >This behavior is consistent with the Infiniband CM (see
> >drivers/infiniband/core/cm.c function cm_recv_handler()).
>> Er...no. It will lose this event. Depending on the event...the carnage
>> varies. We'll take a look at this.
>>
>
>This behavior is consistent with the Infiniband CM (see
>drivers/infiniband/core/cm.c function cm_recv_handler()). But I think
>we should at least log an error because a lost event
