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
| ||
|
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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists