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