From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Jason Gunthorpe Subject: Re: [Fwd: Re: [PATCH] libibmad: Fixes for failures when not all ports of HCA are connected] Date: Thu, 21 Mar 2013 16:58:58 -0600 Message-ID: <20130321225858.GA9924@obsidianresearch.com> References: <20130320231923.GA32300@obsidianresearch.com> <514A5C07.3080308@oracle.com> <20130321052122.GB20882@obsidianresearch.com> <514B6F74.9020707@oracle.com> <20130321212703.GA8431@obsidianresearch.com> <2807E5FD2F6FDA4886F6618EAC48510EBB4AF5@CRSMSX102.amr.corp.intel.com> <20130321220751.GG8431@obsidianresearch.com> <2807E5FD2F6FDA4886F6618EAC48510EBB4B49@CRSMSX102.amr.corp.intel.com> <20130321225018.GA9749@obsidianresearch.com> <2807E5FD2F6FDA4886F6618EAC48510EBB4B7E@CRSMSX102.amr.corp.intel.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <2807E5FD2F6FDA4886F6618EAC48510EBB4B7E-8k97q/ur5Z1cIJlls4ac1rfspsVTdybXVpNB7YpNyf8@public.gmane.org> Sender: linux-rdma-owner-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org To: "Weiny, Ira" Cc: brendan doyle , Boris Chiu , "iweiny-Re5JQEeQqe8AvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org" , "linux-rdma-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org" , Pramod Gunjikar List-Id: linux-rdma@vger.kernel.org On Thu, Mar 21, 2013 at 10:53:21PM +0000, Weiny, Ira wrote: > > From: Jason Gunthorpe [mailto:jgunthorpe-ePGOBjL8dl3ta4EC/59zMFaTQe2KTcn/@public.gmane.org] > > Sent: Thursday, March 21, 2013 3:50 PM > > To: Weiny, Ira > > Cc: brendan doyle; Boris Chiu; iweiny-Re5JQEeQqe8AvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org; linux- > > rdma-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org; Pramod Gunjikar > > Subject: Re: [Fwd: Re: [PATCH] libibmad: Fixes for failures when not all ports > > of HCA are connected] > > > > On Thu, Mar 21, 2013 at 10:46:06PM +0000, Weiny, Ira wrote: > > > > > have to follow different idioms. However having 2 or 3 in the same > > > library is even worse!!! > > > > Agreed, I think you made a compelling case that the new POSIX method is > > not appropriate for this library, so standardizing on the old method is the > > least bad option.. > > > > Wait what did I do? > > You think using errno is the "right" thing to do now? Well, I greatly prefer +ERRNO return for its enhanced safety and consistency with other libraries but I didn't do the analysis you did to see how inapplicable it is to the existing function signatures.. Usually it is > 50% :) 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