From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: "Vishwanathapura, Niranjana" Subject: Re: [PATCH for-next 0/2] IB/opa_vnic: Add debugfs interface Date: Tue, 3 Oct 2017 10:05:04 -0700 Message-ID: <20171003170503.GA53371@knc-06.sc.intel.com> References: <20170928190502.GA33289@knc-06.sc.intel.com> <20170928193740.GH2297@mtr-leonro.local> <20170928200258.GA27343@obsidianresearch.com> <20170929054959.GJ2297@mtr-leonro.local> <20170929145950.GC2965@mtr-leonro.local> <20170929152707.GA34521@knc-06.sc.intel.com> <20171002042323.GG2031@mtr-leonro.local> <68a08a10-5b8d-4fd7-ad06-8add423bd3cd@intel.com> <20171003051521.GA26055@mtr-leonro.local> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20171003051521.GA26055-U/DQcQFIOTAAJjI8aNfphQ@public.gmane.org> Sender: linux-rdma-owner-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org To: Leon Romanovsky Cc: Dennis Dalessandro , Jason Gunthorpe , Doug Ledford , linux-rdma-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org, Sudeep Dutt , Sadanand Warrier List-Id: linux-rdma@vger.kernel.org On Tue, Oct 03, 2017 at 08:15:21AM +0300, Leon Romanovsky wrote: >On Mon, Oct 02, 2017 at 08:47:08PM -0400, Dennis Dalessandro wrote: >> On 10/2/2017 12:23 AM, Leon Romanovsky wrote: >> > Upstream is not a development playground and you should submit your code once >> > you think that it is ready. So we are assuming that VNIC is working and >> > you are interested to debug your EM and such code doesn't belong to the kernel. >> >> This patch aside, I do have to take some issue with this statement. While >> upstream is not a "playground" we should be submitting code early. I keep >> harping on iterative development, show your work. Granted that doesn't mean >> write broken code and toss it over the fence to kernel.org, but pieces that >> can be broken up and tested on their own are best. > >We are talking about the same. Large feature (VNIC) was divided to >sub-tasks like patches and maybe sub-features. Those sub-features were >submitted early (iterative development), which is good and sounds right >for me too. > >But the expectation is that these building blocks are tested and working >and you don't need to debug them. > >For sure, there are always exceptions to the statements above and >various counters, states, dumps e.t.c are good examples for >such exceptions, because they add visibility to the system, but they >don't change the system. > >> >> > If you still insist on 2.a, the solution should be in your company: add >> > debugfs locally, write tests, find and fix bugs and submit them to >> > upstream. >> >> Now back to this patch series. debugfs vs NetLink, I don't think it really >> matters if the rationale for having the patch in the first place is wrong. >> In other words you would have still opposed this even if it were NetLink I >> assume? We are discussing internally but for now I think this series can be >> dropped. > >I am more than happy to see OPA-VNIC configurations in NetLink, but >don't forget that it will be part of ABI and users will use it, so you >need to ensure that the OPA-VNIC network won't die after one of the >nodes will change vport value. > >Before you are rushing to implement it via netlink, you should ask >yourself WHY this functionality is needed for the users. > Alright, let us drop this VNIC debugfs patch series. Niranjana -- 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