From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Matan Barak Subject: Re: [PATCH for-next V7 00/10] Move RoCE GID management to IB/Core Date: Sun, 2 Aug 2015 10:56:38 +0300 Message-ID: <55BDCD36.6000301@mellanox.com> References: <1438270411-17648-1-git-send-email-matanb@mellanox.com> <55BB6F10.5030408@redhat.com> <20150731163201.GA6027@obsidianresearch.com> <55BBB353.7020806@redhat.com> <20150731220102.GA31209@obsidianresearch.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: Doug Ledford , "linux-rdma-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org" , Sean Hefty , "Somnath Kotur" , Moni Shoua , "talal-VPRAkNaXOzVWk0Htik3J/w@public.gmane.org" , Haggai Eran , Linux Netdev List To: Or Gerlitz , Jason Gunthorpe Return-path: In-Reply-To: Sender: linux-rdma-owner-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org List-Id: netdev.vger.kernel.org On 8/2/2015 12:48 AM, Or Gerlitz wrote: > On Sat, Aug 1, 2015 at 1:01 AM, Jason Gunthorpe > wrote: >> On Sat, Aug 01, 2015 at 12:24:23AM +0300, Or Gerlitz wrote: >> >>> addressed in incremental patch, as Doug suggested. Jason, it's wrong >>> to send developers again and again to fix things which were >>> perfect in Vn-1 but also not being covered by reviewers on Vn-1, at >>> some point the reviewer can't load new comments which gate the >> >> I don't even know what you are talking about Or. >> >> v6 had some small problems in the logic and v7 introduces a fairly >> serious flaw while trying to fix them. IMHO, you are better to merge >> v6 than v7, at least v6's problems are less likely to be serious. > > Jason, can you be more specific? I don't see any comments from you > expect for the cover-letter, so if something broke out, sure, a fix is > needed, but what is that? > >> That is the same argument you used for the timestamp _ex UAPI mess, >> last cycle, where are the incremental fixes for that? > > I remember you have provided review comment which pointed that the > time-stamping series stepped on something which was there before needs > some cleanup, not a real mess to my taste. Matan, do have the plan to > do that work? Indeed this design flaw was introduced when the first legacy verb was extended. I think that falling back from extended code to legacy code should be in the uverbs code. ib_uverbs_write will return -ENOSYS only if both extended and non-extended don't exist. The uverbs command itself will call the non-extended form if the comp_mask is zero and all data between legacy size and the given size are zero as well. What do you think? > > Or. > Matan -- 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