From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Jason Gunthorpe Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC iproute2-next 1/2] rdma: add 'link add/delete' commands Date: Wed, 28 Nov 2018 15:25:58 -0700 Message-ID: <20181128222558.GI19914@ziepe.ca> References: <7026be07534b14fd74e592c315523c57fde05a0a.1543422310.git.swise@opengridcomputing.com> <20181128182645.GJ4559@mtr-leonro.mtl.com> <20181128200412.GP4559@mtr-leonro.mtl.com> <20181128201303.GR4559@mtr-leonro.mtl.com> <20181128221711.GH19914@ziepe.ca> <870b87fa-0485-5aee-239a-0312b34a4361@opengridcomputing.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <870b87fa-0485-5aee-239a-0312b34a4361@opengridcomputing.com> Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org To: Steve Wise Cc: Leon Romanovsky , dsahern@gmail.com, stephen@networkplumber.org, netdev@vger.kernel.org, linux-rdma@vger.kernel.org, BMT@zurich.ibm.com List-Id: linux-rdma@vger.kernel.org On Wed, Nov 28, 2018 at 04:21:48PM -0600, Steve Wise wrote: > >> It does make sense to not require type.  The name must be unique so that > >> should be enough.  I'll have to respin the kernel side though... > > The delete_link really should be an operation on the ib_device, not > > the link_ops thing. > > > > That directly prevents mis-matching function callbacks.. > > > > Jason > Looking at the rtnetlink newlink/dellink, I see they cache the link_ops > ptr in the net_device struct.  So when the link is deleted, then > appropriate driver-specific dellink function can be called after finding > the device to be deleted.  Should I do something along these lines?  IE > add a struct rdma_link_ops pointer to struct ib_device. I don't see a problem with that either.. Jason