On Thu, 2015-04-09 at 10:01 -0600, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 09, 2015 at 10:34:30AM -0400, Doug Ledford wrote:
>
> > These are exactly the tests I proposed Jason. I'm not sure I see your
> > point here. I guess my point is that although the scenario of all the
> > different items seems complex, it really does boil down to needing only
> > exactly what I proposed earlier to fulfill the entire test matrix.
>
> I have no problem with minimizing a bitmap, but I want the accessors
> to make sense first.
>
> My specific problem with your suggestion was combining cap_ib_mad,
> cap_ib_sa, and cap_ib_smi into rdma_port_ib_fabric_mgmt.
>
> Not only do the three cap things not return the same value for all
> situations, the documentary knowledge is lost by the reduction.
>
> I'd prefer we look at this from a 'what do the call sites need' view,
> not a 'how do we minimize' view.
>
> I've written this before: The mess here is that it is too hard to know
> what the call sites are actually checking for when it is some baroque
> conditional.
The two goals: being specific about what the test is returning and
minimizing the bitmap footprint; are not necessarily opposed. One can
do both at the same time.
--
Doug Ledford <dledford@xxxxxxxxxx>
GPG KeyID: 0E572FDD
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
