On Jul 1, 2009, at 10:23 PM, Eugene Loh wrote:
> > For the future, we have a two pronged plan:
> I suspect the standard procedure is that we all look quickly at this
> e-mail message, file appropriately, and then resume our normal lives.
> Yes? Or, is such a plan put somehow into place?
I have time to allocate to this starting next week, but I then take a
week of vacation the week after.
> > 1. Clean up the sm btl:
> > 1a. Remove all dead code.
> What do you mean here? (Possibly you mean getting rid of sm pending
> sends if we implement 1b properly, but I'm not sure.)
You mentioned to Brian and me that there was a lot of "dead
code" (#if'ed out or otherwise will-never-be-used). If that's
incorrect, then forget this item.
> > 1b. Resize free_list_max and fifo_size MCA params to effect good
> > enough flow control.
> > 1c. Possibly: convert from FIFO's to linked lists (for future
> > maintenance purposes, not necessarily to fix problems).
> Another idea is to have two kinds of FIFOs. One is just for returning
> fragments. The other is for in-coming message fragments. It would
> seem as though one would no longer need "free lists", but just use the
> ack FIFO to manage fragments. (ALL of this is complicated by the fact
> that we have two kinds of fragments, eager and max, but fortunately
> those details can be pushed onto the sorry fool who'll be implementing
> all this. I wonder who that'll be.)
Likely me and/or Brian.