On 12/15/2015 9:03 PM, Doug Ledford wrote:
Or, you specifically asked me to wait until this week. I made my
initial impressions clear (I don't necessarily like the removal of the
attr struct, but I like the removal of all of the query calls, and I'm
inclined to take the patch in spite of not liking the removal of the
struct). Do you have anything to add or have we beat this horse to death?
Hi Doug,
Lets stop beating, both horses and people.
I do understand that
1. you don't link the removal of the attr
2. you do like the removal of all the query calls
I am proposing to take the path of a patch that
does exactly #2 while avoiding #1.
What's wrong with that? I haven't heard any reasoning for why its
so good to stash ~50 new fields on the IB device structure except
for the author saying that other subsystems do that and other people
saying they are in favor of this approach while not providing any
reasoning, except for maybe something on bikes.
Why you or anyone else has to be from now and ever the cache line police
making sure that people don't add new attributes in random locations
over the IB device structure?
What's wrong with putting fifty attributesin a structure which is a field
of the device struct and have people go there to see what are the d
ifferentattrs and add news ones there?
This will make the 4.5 merge window extremely complex or even totally
threatened w.r.t to the RDMA subsystem and related drivers by 3.3K LOC
patch.
Sorry, but, I still don't get it.
Or.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-rdma" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
