On Mon, May 16, 2016 at 11:09:44AM -0400, Doug Ledford wrote: > On 05/15/2016 06:51 AM, Mark Bloch wrote: > > >> But, just as importantly, after reading addr.c to see how it uses the ibnl > >> infrastructure, I don't even see what the original problem can be. > > As it stands today: > > - ibnl is part of ib_core. > > - ib_core needs ib_addr. > > > > So if we add ibnl usage to ib_addr it means ib_addr will need ib_core, > > which causes a dependency cycle. > > Right, but in that case, this patch needs to be part of the series that > adds the ibnl support into the ib_addr functionality. Because you split > them into separate series, this was a patch looking for a problem to > solve and it wasn't clear what it was. If I had taken the other series > and not this series, it would have broken things. So please keep > patches like this together with the other patches that depend on it. > > That said, I also don't want to redo modules if we don't have to. As my > previous email points out, changing modules breaks init scripts and > systemd unit files. It is to be avoided when possible. Sorry, I was in the mood of fixing things when I wrote and sent this patch. The question is which version will you more likely to accept: this one (remove ib_addr module) or previous one (add ib_netlink module)? Thanks. > > > -- > Doug Ledford <dledford@xxxxxxxxxx> > GPG KeyID: 0E572FDD > >
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
