Re: ib mad definitions

[Jason Gunthorpe <jgunthorpe-ePGOBjL8dl3ta4EC/59zMFaTQe2KTcn/@public.gmane.org>]

On Tue, Oct 19, 2010 at 06:32:57PM -0700, Ira Weiny wrote:
> On Tue, 19 Oct 2010 18:09:58 -0700
> Jason Gunthorpe <jgunthorpe-ePGOBjL8dl3ta4EC/59zMFaTQe2KTcn/@public.gmane.org> wrote:
> 
> > On Tue, Oct 19, 2010 at 06:00:51PM -0700, Hefty, Sean wrote:
> > > > Can we at least agree on the usage of these structures first? Are the
> > > > constants going to be in host or network byte order?
> > > 
> > > I was simply suggesting to 'move' some of the existing structures and defines.
> > 
> > But they are horrible and little used outside opensm right now, you
> > really want to commit to that forever?
 
> Not everything is horrible.  And if it is we can fix it.  But I think
> defining "yet another" header with the same functionality is worse.
> Like it or

libibumad is a system library. It needs to have a stable ABI, low
churn and ideally be 'complete'.

My database of IB structs has 117 structures, all with wakky alignment
and all manner of strangeness. IMHO, it is infeasible to keep with the
ad hoc approach in ibtypes.h and generate a complete header set
without a lot of churn. This is why it is horrible.

There are things worse than 'yet another' header - for instance a
system library being churned again and again for cleanups. Figure out
what you want, do it once, do it right, be done.

If we could all agree what these structs should look like I can
provide my database and someone can write the codegen AND WE CAN BE
DONE FOREVER. How is this not much better??

Don't treat the API of a system library as some casual thing. :(

Jason
--
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