On 04/22/2015 07:10 PM, ira.weiny wrote: > On Wed, Apr 22, 2015 at 10:59:52AM -0400, Doug Ledford wrote: >> On Tue, 2015-04-21 at 23:36 +0000, Liran Liss wrote: > > [snip] > >>> >>> 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 am sure Michael is open to alternative names. I know I am. The problem is > that we can't figure out what "IBoE" is. It is not a transport, even though > query_transport is now returning it as one. :-P
Exactly :-P > > I think the idea behind the "tech" name was that it is a technology "family". > I can't think of a better name. IMHO a single patch to change the name and collecting all the discussion in that thread would be better. The discussion in this thread already starting to be scattered, like discussion on bitmask would be better in a thread dedicated on that purpose, otherwise we have to collect all these scattered discussions again when the bitmask series come out... Regards, Michael Wang > > 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/
