> Are you proposing for 4.1-rc?
The code has been this way forever, so IMO 4.2 should be fine.
> I assume this passed testing on the linux/non-linux setup?
The patch came from Ted. I'm assuming that he tested with this.
> Was it tested in a similar situation on linux/linux setup? How do we
> handle this specific rej scenario?
This change effectively changes the reject code that is reported in the reject message from 'consumer reject' to 'timeout'. The code already handles this.
> Did you intend to add an ISSUE B: section to the commit message?
The issue is listed as the missing comm id. Though, thinking about it again, the issue may have been a missing node GUID. I can't recall now. Maybe Ted does.
The IB spec is goofy here in that it only allows a CM REQ, once sent, to timeout. It doesn't define an 'abort' case. The spec also treats the connection is being in a single 'REP wait' state, regardless of whether an MRA has been received or not. This change results in the 'I got an MRA but I'm waiting for a REP' to be handled the same as 'I'm waiting for a REP', at least for the destruction case.
- Sean
��.n��������+%������w��{.n�����{���fk��ܨ}���Ơz�j:+v�����w����ޙ��&�)ߡ�a����z�ޗ���ݢj��w�f
