On Tue, Jul 27, 2021 at 11:10:25PM +0000, Chuck Lever III wrote: > > > On Jul 27, 2021, at 5:20 PM, Marciniszyn, Mike <mike.marciniszyn@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > >>> Haakon's original analysis said that this was an INIT->INIT > >>> transition, so I'm a bit confused why we lost a RESET->INIT transition > >>> in the end? > >> > >> Perhaps the patch should have removed the ib_modify_qp() from > >> cma_modify_qp_rtr() instead. > > > > I think that will work. > > Implemented and tested. It doesn't work. :-) > > The conclusion I draw is that there are still spots that depend > on one or the other of those state transitions remaining where > they are. So let's revert this patch. Thanks > > -- > Chuck Lever > > >
