From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Jason Gunthorpe Subject: Re: [PATCH rdma/wip/jgg-for-next] RDMA/netlink: Hide unimplemented NLDEV commands Date: Tue, 30 Jan 2018 09:03:37 -0700 Message-ID: <20180130160337.GD17053@ziepe.ca> References: <20180130150716.16372-1-leon@kernel.org> <20180130155706.GC14797@nanopsycho> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20180130155706.GC14797@nanopsycho> Sender: linux-rdma-owner-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org To: Jiri Pirko Cc: Leon Romanovsky , Doug Ledford , Leon Romanovsky , RDMA mailing list , Steve Wise List-Id: linux-rdma@vger.kernel.org On Tue, Jan 30, 2018 at 04:57:06PM +0100, Jiri Pirko wrote: > Tue, Jan 30, 2018 at 04:07:16PM CET, leon-DgEjT+Ai2ygdnm+yROfE0A@public.gmane.org wrote: > >From: Leon Romanovsky > > > >The nldev was implemented by following devlink implementation, > >including SET/DEL/NEW commands. However these commands were not > >implemented and hence don't need to be exposed. > > > >Signed-off-by: Leon Romanovsky > > include/uapi/rdma/rdma_netlink.h | 14 ++++++-------- > > 1 file changed, 6 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-) > > > >diff --git a/include/uapi/rdma/rdma_netlink.h b/include/uapi/rdma/rdma_netlink.h > >index 17e59bec169e..4c77e2a7b07e 100644 > >+++ b/include/uapi/rdma/rdma_netlink.h > >@@ -227,16 +227,14 @@ enum rdma_nldev_command { > > RDMA_NLDEV_CMD_UNSPEC, > > > > RDMA_NLDEV_CMD_GET, /* can dump */ > >- RDMA_NLDEV_CMD_SET, > >- RDMA_NLDEV_CMD_NEW, > >- RDMA_NLDEV_CMD_DEL, > > > >- RDMA_NLDEV_CMD_PORT_GET, /* can dump */ > >- RDMA_NLDEV_CMD_PORT_SET, > >- RDMA_NLDEV_CMD_PORT_NEW, > >- RDMA_NLDEV_CMD_PORT_DEL, > >+ /* 2 - 4 are free to use */ > > > >- RDMA_NLDEV_CMD_RES_GET, /* can dump */ > >+ RDMA_NLDEV_CMD_PORT_GET = 5, /* can dump */ > >+ > >+ /* 6 - 8 are free to use */ > > I don't see reason for the wholes. We are stuck with the holes, it is fixed uABI at this point, can't change the constants we actually implemented. > Also, Don't you use *_NEW for replies to *_GET, as it is common for > Netlink? It appears not.. IMHO that convention makes the most sense when there is a GET/NEW pair with the idea the NEW is formed to be echoed back to the kernel - these case are all GET only.. 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