> -----Original Message----- > From: Leon Romanovsky <leon@xxxxxxxxxx> > Sent: Thursday, October 8, 2020 1:00 AM > To: Williams, Dan J <dan.j.williams@xxxxxxxxx> > Cc: Ertman, David M <david.m.ertman@xxxxxxxxx>; Parav Pandit > <parav@xxxxxxxxxx>; Pierre-Louis Bossart <pierre- > louis.bossart@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; alsa-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; > parav@xxxxxxxxxxxx; tiwai@xxxxxxx; netdev@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; > ranjani.sridharan@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; fred.oh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; linux- > rdma@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; dledford@xxxxxxxxxx; broonie@xxxxxxxxxx; Jason > Gunthorpe <jgg@xxxxxxxxxx>; gregkh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; > kuba@xxxxxxxxxx; Saleem, Shiraz <shiraz.saleem@xxxxxxxxx>; > davem@xxxxxxxxxxxxx; Patil, Kiran <kiran.patil@xxxxxxxxx> > Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/6] Add ancillary bus support > > 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. > > 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. So, to address your concern of not being able to call an uninit after a add failure I can break the unregister flow into two steps also. An uninit and a delete to mirror the registration process's init and add. Would this make the registration and un-registration flow acceptable? -DaveE > > Thanks
