Re: [PATCH v5 00/27] IB/Verbs: IB Management Helpers

[Michael Wang]

On 04/22/2015 06:57 PM, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 22, 2015 at 10:59:52AM -0400, Doug Ledford wrote:
> 
>>> 2)The name rdma_tech_* is lame.
>>> rdma_transport_*(), adhering to the above (*) remark, is much better.
>>> For example, both IB and ROCE *do* use the same transport. 
>>
>> I especially want to second this.  I haven't really been happy with the
>> rdma_tech_* names at all.
> 
> I'm not excited about the names either..
> 
> cap_ is bad because it pollutes the global namespace.
> 
> rdma_tech_ .. as used, this is selecting the standard the port
> implements. The word 'standard' is a better choice than 'transport',
> and 'technology' is often synonymous with 'standard'. Meh.
> 
> I've said it already, but this patch set has probably gotten too
> big. If we could just do the cap conversion without messing with other
> stuff, or adding rdma_tech, that would really be the best.
> 
> Nobody seems to like the rdma_tech parts of this series.
> 
> I'd also drop '[PATCH v5 09/27] IB/Verbs: Reform IB-core
> verbs/uverbs_cmd/sysfs' - that is UAPI stuff, it could be done as a
> followup someday, not worth the risk right now.

There won't be risk... the logical is clear that they will return
the same result, but I'll drop the modification on link_layer_show()
and ib_uverbs_query_port() anyway, since they are just try to get the
link-layer type and we are not going to erase that helper anymore.

Regards,
Michael Wang

> 
> Jason
> 
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/