Re: [PATCH 1/2] net/mlx5: support device removal event

["Nélio Laranjeiro" <nelio.laranjeiro@6wind.com>]

On Thu, Aug 24, 2017 at 02:33:43PM +0000, Matan Azrad wrote:
> Hi Nelio
>[...] 
> > 
> > I am expecting to find something related to a link update, what I see is an
> > alarm update.  I don't expect to update an alarm but a link.  The names and
> > action are inconsistent i.e. mlx5_dev_link_status_handler() should handle a
> > link not an alarm.
> > 
> > I understand there is a need to add more function levels, but the
> > priv_link_status_alarm_update() should be renamed to something like
> > priv_link_status_update().
> 
> OK, I think I understand you.
> 
> Because the alarm is a workaround you don't think it should be mentioned
> in function description or function name.
> (also the function subject should be the link status and not the alarm)
> I can agree with you about it.
> And I will create v2 with your suggestion - priv_link_status_update.

Thanks,

> The return value description can stay as in old code semantic:
> Zero if the callback process can be called immediately.
> 
> Are you agree?

Yes.

> Maybe we can tell something about the alarm and inconsistent reason
> In this function description or internal comment for future code review.
> If you want it, please suggest comment.

Yes the comment can added internally.

Thanks,

-- 
Nélio Laranjeiro
6WIND