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. Jason -- 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/
