linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v5 19/27] IB/Verbs: Use management helper cap_iw

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <5536678B.50504@opengridcomputing.com>
Date:	Tue, 21 Apr 2015 10:06:51 -0500
From:	Tom Tucker <tom@...ngridcomputing.com>
To:	Michael Wang <yun.wang@...fitbricks.com>,
	Steve Wise <swise@...ngridcomputing.com>,
	Roland Dreier <roland@...nel.org>,
	Sean Hefty <sean.hefty@...el.com>, linux-rdma@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, hal@....mellanox.co.il
CC:	Hoang-Nam Nguyen <hnguyen@...ibm.com>,
	Christoph Raisch <raisch@...ibm.com>,
	Mike Marciniszyn <infinipath@...el.com>,
	Eli Cohen <eli@...lanox.com>,
	Faisal Latif <faisal.latif@...el.com>,
	Jack Morgenstein <jackm@....mellanox.co.il>,
	Or Gerlitz <ogerlitz@...lanox.com>,
	Haggai Eran <haggaie@...lanox.com>,
	Ira Weiny <ira.weiny@...el.com>, Tom Talpey <tom@...pey.com>,
	Jason Gunthorpe <jgunthorpe@...idianresearch.com>,
	Doug Ledford <dledford@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 19/27] IB/Verbs: Use management helper cap_iw_cm()

On 4/21/15 2:39 AM, Michael Wang wrote:
>
> On 04/20/2015 05:51 PM, Tom Tucker wrote:
> [snip]
>>>>>     int ib_query_gid(struct ib_device *device,
>>>>>              u8 port_num, int index, union ib_gid *gid);
>>>>>     
>>>> iWARP devices _must_ support the IWCM so cap_iw_cm() is not really useful.
>>> Sean suggested to add this helper paired with cap_ib_cm(), may be there are
>>> some consideration on maintainability?
>>>
>>> Me too also prefer this way to make the code more readable ;-)
>> It's more consistent, but not necessarily more readable -- if by readability we mean understanding.
>>
>> If the reader knows how the transports work, then the reader would be confused by the addition of a check that is always true. For the reader that doesn't know, the addition of the check implies that the support is optional, which it is not.
> The purpose is to make sure folks understand what we really want to check
> when they reviewing the code :-) and prepared for the further reform which may
> not rely on technology type any more, for example the device could tell core
> layer directly what management it required with a bitmask :-)
Hi Michael,

Thanks for the reply, but my premise was just wrong...I need to review the 
whole patch, not just a snippet.

Thanks,
Tom
> Regards,
> Michael Wang
>
>> Tom
>>
>>> Regards,
>>> Michael Wang
>>>
>>> -- 
>>> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-rdma" in
>>> the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
>>> More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
> --
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-rdma" in
> the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
> More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/