From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S933339AbYEGTSi (ORCPT ); Wed, 7 May 2008 15:18:38 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1756442AbYEGTSX (ORCPT ); Wed, 7 May 2008 15:18:23 -0400 Received: from sj-iport-1.cisco.com ([171.71.176.70]:45961 "EHLO sj-iport-1.cisco.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1762442AbYEGTSU (ORCPT ); Wed, 7 May 2008 15:18:20 -0400 From: Roland Dreier To: Stefan Roscher Cc: LKML , "LinuxPPC-Dev" , "OF-EWG" , fenkes@de.ibm.com, raisch@de.ibm.com 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> X-Message-Flag: Warning: May contain useful information 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: User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/23.0.60 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-OriginalArrivalTime: 07 May 2008 19:18:19.0152 (UTC) FILETIME=[1BA60100:01C8B077] Authentication-Results: sj-dkim-2; header.From=rdreier@cisco.com; dkim=pass ( sig from cisco.com/sjdkim2002 verified; ); Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org 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.