Messages in this thread |  | | Date | Mon, 20 Apr 2015 10:51:58 -0500 | From | Tom Tucker <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH v5 19/27] IB/Verbs: Use management helper cap_iw_cm() |
| |
On 4/20/15 10:16 AM, Michael Wang wrote: > On 04/20/2015 04:00 PM, Steve Wise wrote: >> On 4/20/2015 3:40 AM, Michael Wang wrote: > [snip] >>> diff --git a/include/rdma/ib_verbs.h b/include/rdma/ib_verbs.h >>> index 6805e3e..e4999f6 100644 >>> --- a/include/rdma/ib_verbs.h >>> +++ b/include/rdma/ib_verbs.h >>> @@ -1818,6 +1818,21 @@ static inline int cap_ib_cm(struct ib_device *device, u8 port_num) >>> return rdma_ib_or_iboe(device, port_num); >>> } >>> +/** >>> + * cap_iw_cm - Check if the port of device has the capability IWARP >>> + * Communication Manager. >>> + * >>> + * @device: Device to be checked >>> + * @port_num: Port number of the device >>> + * >>> + * Return 0 when port of the device don't support IWARP >>> + * Communication Manager. >>> + */ >>> +static inline int cap_iw_cm(struct ib_device *device, u8 port_num) >>> +{ >>> + return rdma_tech_iwarp(device, port_num); >>> +} >>> + >>> int ib_query_gid(struct ib_device *device, >>> u8 port_num, int index, union ib_gid *gid); >>> >> iWARP devices _must_ support the IWCM so cap_iw_cm() is not really useful. > Sean suggested to add this helper paired with cap_ib_cm(), may be there are > some consideration on maintainability? > > Me too also prefer this way to make the code more readable ;-)
It's more consistent, but not necessarily more readable -- if by readability we mean understanding.
If the reader knows how the transports work, then the reader would be confused by the addition of a check that is always true. For the reader that doesn't know, the addition of the check implies that the support is optional, which it is not.
Tom
> Regards, > Michael Wang > >> > -- > To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-rdma" in > the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org > More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
|  |