linux-kernel - RE: [PATCH v3 07/28] IB/Verbs: Reform IB-ulp ipoib

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: <2807E5FD2F6FDA4886F6618EAC48510E0CC8BFFA@CRSMSX101.amr.corp.intel.com>
Date:	Thu, 16 Apr 2015 17:05:31 +0000
From:	"Weiny, Ira" <ira.weiny@...el.com>
To:	Jason Gunthorpe <jgunthorpe@...idianresearch.com>,
	Michael Wang <yun.wang@...fitbricks.com>
CC:	"Hefty, Sean" <sean.hefty@...el.com>,
	Roland Dreier <roland@...nel.org>,
	Hal Rosenstock <hal.rosenstock@...il.com>,
	"linux-rdma@...r.kernel.org" <linux-rdma@...r.kernel.org>,
	"linux-kernel@...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>,
	infinipath <infinipath@...el.com>,
	"Eli Cohen" <eli@...lanox.com>,
	"Latif, Faisal" <faisal.latif@...el.com>,
	"Jack Morgenstein" <jackm@....mellanox.co.il>,
	Or Gerlitz <ogerlitz@...lanox.com>,
	Haggai Eran <haggaie@...lanox.com>,
	Tom Talpey <tom@...pey.com>,
	"Doug Ledford" <dledford@...hat.com>
Subject: RE: [PATCH v3 07/28] IB/Verbs: Reform IB-ulp ipoib

> 
> On Wed, Apr 15, 2015 at 09:58:18AM +0200, Michael Wang wrote:
> 
> > We can give client->add() callback a return value and make
> > ib_register_device() return -ENOMEM when it failed, just wondering why
> > we don't do this at first, any special reason?
> 
> No idea, but having ib_register_device fail and unwind if a client fails to attach
> makes sense to me.

Yes that is what we should do _but_ 

I think we should tackle that in a different series.

As you said in another email, this series is getting very long and hard to review/prove is correct.  This is why I was advocating keeping a check at the top of cm_add_one which verified all Ports supported the CM.  This is the current logic today and is proven to work for the devices/use cases out there.

We can clean up the initialization code and implement support for individual ports in follow on patches.

Ira

--
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/