linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v3 27/28] IB/Verbs: Clean up rdma_ib_or

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: <20150413203350.GA20611@obsidianresearch.com>
Date:	Mon, 13 Apr 2015 14:33:50 -0600
From:	Jason Gunthorpe <jgunthorpe@...idianresearch.com>
To:	Michael Wang <yun.wang@...fitbricks.com>
Cc:	Roland Dreier <roland@...nel.org>,
	Sean Hefty <sean.hefty@...el.com>,
	Hal Rosenstock <hal.rosenstock@...il.com>,
	linux-rdma@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	Tom Tucker <tom@...ngridcomputing.com>,
	Steve Wise <swise@...ngridcomputing.com>,
	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>,
	Doug Ledford <dledford@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 27/28] IB/Verbs: Clean up rdma_ib_or_iboe()

On Mon, Apr 13, 2015 at 02:36:45PM +0200, Michael Wang wrote:
> We have finished introducing the cap_XX(), and raw helper rdma_ib_or_iboe()
> is no longer necessary, thus clean it up.

So, the net result is not looking too bad, but I'm confused about the
structure of this series.

Why introduce query_transport early on?

Why is the patch series going through this progression most lines?

-       if (rdma_port_get_link_layer(device, port_num) == IB_LINK_LAYER_INFINIBAND) {
+       if (rdma_tech_ib(device, port_num)) {
+       if (cap_ib_smi(device, port_num)) {

This would be a lot shorter and simpler to look at if the cap's were
introduced first, then their implementation finalized.

I thought we agreed Doug's bitmask plan should be the final
destination for this series, so this progress seems even stranger?

I would be very happy to see a patch that adds cap_ib_smi to the
current tree and states 'This patch is tested to have no change on the
binary compilation results'

Jason
--
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/