On Fri, Aug 18, 2017 at 9:10 PM, Leon Romanovsky <leon@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> >> The following patch helps. But it is like a workaround to solve the problem. >> >> diff --git a/drivers/infiniband/core/cm.c b/drivers/infiniband/core/cm.c >> index d5ca101..59911dd 100644 >> --- a/drivers/infiniband/core/cm.c >> +++ b/drivers/infiniband/core/cm.c >> @@ -4189,7 +4189,7 @@ static void cm_add_one(struct ib_device *ib_device) >> goto error2; >> >> ret = ib_modify_port(ib_device, i, 0, &port_modify); >> - if (ret) >> + if (ret && ret != -ENOSYS) >> goto error3; >> >> count++; >> >> Or should we have the modify_port hook with some basic checks? > > I think that your proposal is right thing to do. The driver should > properly return the status of its callbacks (-ENOSYS) and it is > responsibility of the caller to decide what to do in such case. > > The dummy function (return 0) hides the fact that modify_port do > nothing and it can be wrong for some callers. > I am bit confused. You support the proposal to have a modify_port with some basic check.. right? > Thanks -- 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
