O.K i am resending this patch and spliting it to 5 small patches 1. Update dat_rmr_bind API (added lmr_handle input param) 2. Remove dapl_hash (there is no need for the hash) 3. Small changes in dapl_hca_alloc/dapl_hca_free functions 4. Integrate dapl_hca_link_ia/dapl_hca_unlink_ia into dapl_ia.c (no need for functios that just call LIST_ADD and LIST_DEL) 5. Integrate dapl_hca_alloc/dapl_hca_free to dapl_provider.c (no need for 2 files just for 2 simple function that kmalloc and kfree. There is not any special logic in this functions that need to separate them into different files)
Itamar > -----Original Message----- > From: Christoph Hellwig [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Friday, June 17, 2005 7:41 PM > To: Itamar & Shira Rabenstein > Cc: openib-general@openib.org > Subject: Re: [openib-general] Re: [PATCH][kdapl]update > dat_rmr_bind API > & delete dapl_hash > > > On Thu, Jun 16, 2005 at 09:20:27PM +0200, Itamar & Shira > Rabenstein wrote: > > >Itamar, > > > > > >Can you seperate the RMR api change and hash table removal into a > > >seperate patch? > > > > I dont see why, the new input param to dat_rmr_bind > (lmr_handle) come > > in order that we will be able to remove the hash table so > this is one > > patch. > > In the Linux world we generally prefer faine-grained patches. While > the RMR api change is a prerequsite to remove the hash code it's not > directly related. > > > >Merging the HCA and IA code into the dapl_ia.[ch] files > doesn't feel > > >right to me. I think of the HCA as a DAT object just like > IAs, EPs, > > >LMRs, etc, and hence it should have its own file. > > > > > >james > > > > > > There are 4 function in this files: > > > > 2 were merged to provider code: > > dapl_hca_alloc(13 lines) :which i think is part of > the provider code . > > dapl_hca_free (1 line) == kfree , no need a function for this. > > 2 were merged to ia code: > > dapl_hca_link_ia (3 lines ) : no need a function > to call list add > > dapl_hca_unlink_ia(3 lines) : no need a function > to call list_del > > > > I belive that we need to make the code more readable and to > have this functions > > is not a good idea and to add 2 files for this is for sure > a bad idea ... > > I agree your reasoning for the second set of functions at least. But > again this is not related to the API change at all, please separate it > out to a patch of it's own, applying ontop of the API change and hash > removal patches. > > _______________________________________________ > openib-general mailing list > openib-general@openib.org > http://openib.org/mailman/listinfo/openib-general > > To unsubscribe, please visit > http://openib.org/mailman/listinfo/openib-general > _______________________________________________ openib-general mailing list openib-general@openib.org http://openib.org/mailman/listinfo/openib-general To unsubscribe, please visit http://openib.org/mailman/listinfo/openib-general