lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2015]   [Apr]   [16]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
From
SubjectRE: [PATCH v3 07/28] IB/Verbs: Reform IB-ulp ipoib
Date
> 
> On Wed, Apr 15, 2015 at 09:58:18AM +0200, Michael Wang wrote:
>
> > We can give client->add() callback a return value and make
> > ib_register_device() return -ENOMEM when it failed, just wondering why
> > we don't do this at first, any special reason?
>
> No idea, but having ib_register_device fail and unwind if a client fails to attach
> makes sense to me.

Yes that is what we should do _but_

I think we should tackle that in a different series.

As you said in another email, this series is getting very long and hard to review/prove is correct. This is why I was advocating keeping a check at the top of cm_add_one which verified all Ports supported the CM. This is the current logic today and is proven to work for the devices/use cases out there.

We can clean up the initialization code and implement support for individual ports in follow on patches.

Ira



\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2015-04-16 19:21    [W:0.117 / U:3.712 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site