From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Jiri Pirko Subject: Re: [PATCH rdma/wip/jgg-for-next] RDMA/netlink: Hide unimplemented NLDEV commands Date: Tue, 30 Jan 2018 19:18:14 +0100 Message-ID: <20180130181814.GD14797@nanopsycho> References: <20180130150716.16372-1-leon@kernel.org> <20180130155706.GC14797@nanopsycho> <20180130160337.GD17053@ziepe.ca> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20180130160337.GD17053-uk2M96/98Pc@public.gmane.org> Sender: linux-rdma-owner-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org To: Jason Gunthorpe Cc: Leon Romanovsky , Doug Ledford , Leon Romanovsky , RDMA mailing list , Steve Wise List-Id: linux-rdma@vger.kernel.org Tue, Jan 30, 2018 at 05:03:37PM CET, jgg-uk2M96/98Pc@public.gmane.org wrote: >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. If it is realeased already, we can't remove the defines either. > >> 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