On 8/2/2015 12:48 AM, Or Gerlitz wrote:
On Sat, Aug 1, 2015 at 1:01 AM, Jason Gunthorpe
<jgunthorpe@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Sat, Aug 01, 2015 at 12:24:23AM +0300, Or Gerlitz wrote:
addressed in incremental patch, as Doug suggested. Jason, it's wrong
to send developers again and again to fix things which were
perfect in Vn-1 but also not being covered by reviewers on Vn-1, at
some point the reviewer can't load new comments which gate the
I don't even know what you are talking about Or.
v6 had some small problems in the logic and v7 introduces a fairly
serious flaw while trying to fix them. IMHO, you are better to merge
v6 than v7, at least v6's problems are less likely to be serious.
Jason, can you be more specific? I don't see any comments from you
expect for the cover-letter, so if something broke out, sure, a fix is
needed, but what is that?
That is the same argument you used for the timestamp _ex UAPI mess,
last cycle, where are the incremental fixes for that?
I remember you have provided review comment which pointed that the
time-stamping series stepped on something which was there before needs
some cleanup, not a real mess to my taste. Matan, do have the plan to
do that work?
Indeed this design flaw was introduced when the first legacy verb was
extended. I think that falling back from extended code to legacy code
should be in the uverbs code. ib_uverbs_write will return -ENOSYS only
if both extended and non-extended don't exist. The uverbs command itself
will call the non-extended form if the comp_mask is zero and all
data between legacy size and the given size are zero as well.
What do you think?
Or.
Matan
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-rdma" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
