Re: [RFC net-next 08/17] net/dibs: Register ism as dibs device

[Dust Li <dust.li@linux.alibaba.com>]

On 2025-08-11 16:27:21, Alexandra Winter wrote:
>
>
>On 10.08.25 16:46, Dust Li wrote:
>> I've been wondering whether we should completely remove the ISM concept
>> from SMC. Including rename smc_ism.c into smc_dibs.c.
>> 
>> Since DIBS already serves as the replacement for ISM, having both ISM
>> and DIBS coexist in the codebase seems a bit confusing and inconsistent.
>> Removing ISM could help streamline the code and improve clarity.
>> 
>> Best regards,
>> Dust
>
>I second that.
>Like I wrote in the last commit message:
>"[RFC net-next 17/17] net/dibs: Move event handling to dibs layer
>...
>SMC-D and ISM are now independent.
>struct ism_dev can be moved to drivers/s390/net/ism.h.
>
>Note that in smc, the term 'ism' is still used. Future patches could
>replace that with 'dibs' or 'smc-d' as appropriate."
>
>
>I am not sure what would be the best way to do such a global replacement.
>One big patch on top of dibs-series? That would be a lot of changes without
>adding any functionality.

I prefer this approach. Renaming without changing functionality keeps
the patch clean and makes it easier to cherry-pick.

Best regards,
Dust

>Or do you have other clarity improvements in the pipeline that could be combined?
>I would like to defer that decision to the smc maintainers. Would that be ok for you?
>