On Tue, 2016-08-16 at 19:50 +0300, Leon Romanovsky wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 16, 2016 at 02:31:32PM +0000, Dalessandro, Dennis wrote:
> > On Tue, 2016-08-16 at 16:45 +0300, Leon Romanovsky wrote:
> > > From: Leon Romanovsky <leonro@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > >
> > > MAD and HFI1 have different naming convention, this patch
> > > simplifies and unifies their defines and names.
> >
> > I don't know that I agree that it simplifies things. It changes a
> > lot
> > of code for not much real value in my opinion.
> >
> > Was this something that was discussed in the verbs call? I have not
> > been able to attend that the last few weeks.
>
> It was discussed over mails, for example Jason's opinion [1],
> Christopher Lameter's opinion [2], Christoph Hellwig's opinion [3].
I'm not opposed to trying to unify things, however this seems to be
more than plop down the hfi1 stuff from here and put it over there. It
is certainly not simplifying anything.
> > > As part of cleanup, the HFI1 _NUM() macro was removed and MAD
> > > indexes were renamed. It has a potential to break application
> > > which use these defines directly.
> >
> > Why do you want to remove the _NUM() macro that Doug just put in?
>
> It is not used after refactoring and IMHO this macro doesn't
> belong to UAPI, since it wouldn't in use by any users, but I'll be
> glad to
> get an examples of its usage in real user space applications
> (libfabric???), if any.
>
That's a fair point. I can see getting rid of it now.
-Denny��.n��������+%������w��{.n�����{���fk��ܨ}���Ơz�j:+v�����w����ޙ��&�)ߡ�a����z�ޗ���ݢj��w�f
