From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from sj-iport-1.cisco.com (sj-iport-1.cisco.com [171.71.176.70]) (using TLSv1 with cipher RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (Client CN "sj-iport-1.cisco.com", Issuer "Cisco SSCA" (not verified)) by ozlabs.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4B3C4DE252 for ; Thu, 8 May 2008 05:18:22 +1000 (EST) From: Roland Dreier To: Stefan Roscher Subject: Re: [ewg] [PATCH] IB/ehca: Protect QP against destroying until all async events for it are handled. References: <200805071319.37164.ossrosch@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <200805071800.15595.ossrosch@linux.vnet.ibm.com> Date: Wed, 07 May 2008 12:18:18 -0700 In-Reply-To: <200805071800.15595.ossrosch@linux.vnet.ibm.com> (Stefan Roscher's message of "Wed, 7 May 2008 18:00:14 +0200") Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: LinuxPPC-Dev , fenkes@de.ibm.com, LKML , raisch@de.ibm.com, OF-EWG List-Id: Linux on PowerPC Developers Mail List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , So I applied this, but thinking about it further, do you (theoretically at least) have the same problem with CQ and SRQ async events? - R.