On 12/22/2015 02:56 AM, Or Gerlitz wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 16, 2015 at 7:53 AM, Or Gerlitz <ogerlitz@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> On 12/15/2015 9:03 PM, Doug Ledford wrote:
>
>>> Or, you specifically asked me to wait until this week. I made my
>>> initial impressions clear (I don't necessarily like the removal of the
>>> attr struct, but I like the removal of all of the query calls, and I'm
>>> inclined to take the patch in spite of not liking the removal of the
>>> struct). Do you have anything to add or have we beat this horse to death?
>
>> Hi Doug,
>> Lets stop beating, both horses and people.
>> I do understand that
>> 1. you don't link the removal of the attr
>> 2. you do like the removal of all the query calls
>>
>> I am proposing to take the path of a patch that
>> does exactly #2 while avoiding #1.
>
> Doug,
>
> Did you look on my v1 post and the related discussion there w.r.t udata?
Yes, I did.
> You didn't make any comment on my response here nor on the proposed patches.
I'm trying to find all of the emails, they aren't in a single thread in
my mailbox (I had to do some reconstruction of my mailbox due to a
problem in a mail filter late last week...missing that the rule was set
to "match any" when I intended "match all" and the action of the rule
was "delete" when I expected delete to be the same as "move to trash"
and it wasn't, it was delete immediately, has caused me some problems).
> Since we are really short in time w.r.t EOY holidays and we have the
> udata matter
> open (see [1]), could we move finalizing this discussion to the 4.6 time-frame?
>
> If you do have the time, I think it would be fair to see a response
> from you on the
> discussion before you pick any of the two patch sets - so??
I'm not inclined to take either patch set as they stand. Your's is
closer to what I'm leaning towards though. I think I can add a single
patch to yours to make it into what I want. I'm going to go work on
that right now...
> Or.
>
> [1] Christoph's patch doesn't remove the query_device callback from
> mlx4 since we
> report there values to libmlx4 through the udata mechanism. The
> query_device callback
> will need to be present in future/current drivers if they decide to
> use udata as well
>
>
>> What's wrong with that? I haven't heard any reasoning for why its
>> so good to stash ~50 new fields on the IB device structure except
>> for the author saying that other subsystems do that and other people
>> saying they are in favor of this approach while not providing any
>> reasoning, except for maybe something on bikes.
>>
>> Why you or anyone else has to be from now and ever the cache line police
>> making sure that people don't add new attributes in random locations
>> over the IB device structure?
>>
>> What's wrong with putting fifty attributesin a structure which is a field
>> of the device struct and have people go there to see what are the d
>> ifferentattrs and add news ones there?
>>
>> This will make the 4.5 merge window extremely complex or even totally
>> threatened w.r.t to the RDMA subsystem and related drivers by 3.3K LOC
>> patch.
>>
>> Sorry, but, I still don't get it.
>>
>> Or.
--
Doug Ledford <dledford@xxxxxxxxxx>
GPG KeyID: 0E572FDD
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
