On 05/16/2016 12:30 PM, Leon Romanovsky wrote:
> 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)?
Can you build netlink in and then init the ib_addr module after the
netlink init is complete? Wouldn't that resolve the dependency ordering
issue without changing the module names?
--
Doug Ledford <dledford@xxxxxxxxxx>
GPG KeyID: 0E572FDD
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
