On Thu, Oct 8, 2020 at 1:00 AM Leon Romanovsky <leon@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Thu, Oct 08, 2020 at 12:38:00AM -0700, Dan Williams wrote: > > On Thu, Oct 8, 2020 at 12:01 AM Leon Romanovsky <leon@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > [..] > > > All stated above is my opinion, it can be different from yours. > > > > Yes, but we need to converge to move this forward. Jason was involved > > in the current organization for registration, Greg was angling for > > this to be core functionality. I have use cases outside of RDMA and > > netdev. Parav was ok with the current organization. The SOF folks > > already have a proposed incorporation of it. The argument I am hearing > > is that "this registration api seems hard for driver writers" when we > > have several driver writers who have already taken a look and can make > > it work. If you want to follow on with a simpler wrappers for your use > > case, great, but I do not yet see anyone concurring with your opinion > > that the current organization is irretrievably broken or too obscure > > to use. > > Can it be that I'm first one to use this bus for very large driver (>120K LOC) > that has 5 different ->probe() flows? > > For example, this https://lore.kernel.org/linux-rdma/20201006172317.GN1874917@unreal/ > hints to me that this bus wasn't used with anything complex as it was initially intended. I missed that. Yes, I agree that's broken. > > And regarding registration, I said many times that init()/add() scheme is ok, the inability > to call to uninit() after add() failure is not ok from my point of view. Ok, I got to the wrong conclusion about your position.
