From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Jason Gunthorpe Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC 2/2] RDMA/nldev: provide detailed CM_ID information Date: Thu, 1 Feb 2018 10:50:29 -0700 Message-ID: <20180201175028.GS17053@ziepe.ca> References: <531889e6a24f7919dec71734c91298d266aa9721.1517418595.git.swise@opengridcomputing.com> <01ea01d39ad5$ec30f7a0$c492e6e0$@opengridcomputing.com> <20180201080109.GG2055@mtr-leonro.local> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20180201080109.GG2055-U/DQcQFIOTAAJjI8aNfphQ@public.gmane.org> Sender: linux-rdma-owner-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org To: Leon Romanovsky Cc: Parav Pandit , Steve Wise , "dledford-H+wXaHxf7aLQT0dZR+AlfA@public.gmane.org" , "linux-rdma-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org" List-Id: linux-rdma@vger.kernel.org On Thu, Feb 01, 2018 at 10:01:09AM +0200, Leon Romanovsky wrote: > Regarding the name, I personally think that cm_id is better because it > is general and applicable both to ib_cm and iw_cm. The separation > between them can be done with introduction of new netlink attribute, e.g. > cm_id_type. In netlink the attributes should be self-describing, or intrinsically related to something mandatory and fundamental about their container (eg AF_ family in rtnl) What information do we actually need from the cm_id in various protocol families? 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