Re: [PATCH v3 07/28] IB/Verbs: Reform IB-ulp ipoib

[Michael Wang <yun.wang-EIkl63zCoXaH+58JC4qpiA@public.gmane.org>]

On 04/16/2015 07:05 PM, Weiny, Ira wrote:
>>
>> On Wed, Apr 15, 2015 at 09:58:18AM +0200, Michael Wang wrote:
>>
>>> We can give client->add() callback a return value and make
>>> ib_register_device() return -ENOMEM when it failed, just wondering why
>>> we don't do this at first, any special reason?
>>
>> No idea, but having ib_register_device fail and unwind if a client fails to attach
>> makes sense to me.
> 
> Yes that is what we should do _but_ 
> 
> I think we should tackle that in a different series.
> 
> As you said in another email, this series is getting very long and hard to review/prove is correct.  This is why I was advocating keeping a check at the top of cm_add_one which verified all Ports supported the CM.  This is the current logic today and is proven to work for the devices/use cases out there.
> 
> We can clean up the initialization code and implement support for individual ports in follow on patches.

Agree, as long as this series do not introduce any Bug, I suggest we
put other reform ideas into next series :-)

We have already eliminate the old inferring way and integrate all the
cases into helpers, further reform should be far more clear based on
this foundation.

Regards,
Michael Wang

> 
> Ira
> 
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-rdma" in
the body of a message to majordomo-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html