From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: =?iso-8859-1?Q?N=E9lio?= Laranjeiro <nelio.laranjeiro@6wind.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] net/mlx5: support device removal event
Date: Fri, 25 Aug 2017 10:29:18 +0200
Message-ID: <20170825082918.GU4544@autoinstall.dev.6wind.com>
References: <1502627112-53405-1-git-send-email-matan@mellanox.com>
 <20170823094037.GS12995@autoinstall.dev.6wind.com>
 <DB6PR0502MB304871761D7E0F83B67929D4D2850@DB6PR0502MB3048.eurprd05.prod.outlook.com>
 <20170824073824.GA4544@autoinstall.dev.6wind.com>
 <DB6PR0502MB3048B8F6B8E1A4B1360F0C87D29A0@DB6PR0502MB3048.eurprd05.prod.outlook.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Cc: Adrien Mazarguil <adrien.mazarguil@6wind.com>,
 "dev@dpdk.org" <dev@dpdk.org>
To: Matan Azrad <matan@mellanox.com>
Return-path: <dev-bounces@dpdk.org>
Received: from mail-wr0-f181.google.com (mail-wr0-f181.google.com
 [209.85.128.181]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 52FF67CFC
 for <dev@dpdk.org>; Fri, 25 Aug 2017 10:29:28 +0200 (CEST)
Received: by mail-wr0-f181.google.com with SMTP id p14so5162007wrg.3
 for <dev@dpdk.org>; Fri, 25 Aug 2017 01:29:28 -0700 (PDT)
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <DB6PR0502MB3048B8F6B8E1A4B1360F0C87D29A0@DB6PR0502MB3048.eurprd05.prod.outlook.com>
List-Id: DPDK patches and discussions <dev.dpdk.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://dpdk.org/ml/options/dev>,
 <mailto:dev-request@dpdk.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://dpdk.org/ml/archives/dev/>
List-Post: <mailto:dev@dpdk.org>
List-Help: <mailto:dev-request@dpdk.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://dpdk.org/ml/listinfo/dev>,
 <mailto:dev-request@dpdk.org?subject=subscribe>
Errors-To: dev-bounces@dpdk.org
Sender: "dev" <dev-bounces@dpdk.org>

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