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 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/
