On 04/10/2015 07:36 PM, Jason Gunthorpe wrote: > On Fri, Apr 10, 2015 at 01:10:43PM -0400, Doug Ledford wrote: > >> documented. I get why you link the address variant, because it pops out >> all the things that are special about IBoE addressing and calls out that >> the issues need to be handled. However, saying requires_iboe_addr(), >> while foreshadowing the work that needs done, doesn't actually document >> the work that needs done. Whether we call is dev_is_iboe() or >> requires_iboe_addr(), it would be good if the documentation spelled out >> those specific requirements for reference sake. > > My deep hope for this, was that the test 'requires_iboe_addr' or > whatever we call it would have a *really good* kdoc. > > List all the ways iboe_addr's work, how they differ from IB addresses, > refer to the specs people should read to understand it, etc. > > The patches don't do this, and maybe Michael is the wrong person to > fill that in, but we can get it done.. That's exactly what I'm thinking ;-) At first I'm just trying to save us some code but now it's becoming a topic far above that purpose, I'd like to help commit whatever we already settled and pass the internal reforming works to experts like you guys , implement the bitmask stuff ;-) And I can still help on review and may be testing with mlx4 if later I got the access. > > Jason > > BTW: Michael, next time you post the series, please trim the CC > list... Thanks for the remind, I'll do trim in v3 :-) Regards, Michael Wang > -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-nfs" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
