On Tue, Nov 14, 2017 at 10:05 AM, Leon Romanovsky <leon@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Mon, Nov 13, 2017 at 12:24:32PM -0700, Jason Gunthorpe wrote: > > On Mon, Nov 13, 2017 at 04:40:24PM +0200, Leon Romanovsky wrote: > > > From: Leon Romanovsky <leonro@xxxxxxxxxxxx> > > > > > > CMA statistics were exposed to users through netlink interface long time > > > ago, but it wasn't exposed using netlink extensibility approach. The > > > current implementation was based on struct and not attributes. > > > > > > Let's remove it, before anyone is actually start to use it and prevents us > > > to write it properly. > > > > You should describe why you think it is safe to remove a uAPI from the > > kernel in the commit message.. When was it introduced? Why was a uAPI > > added with no users?? > > I didn't want to invest time before I actually see that it is possible. > The purpose of this RFC is to hear feedback and see if anyone cares enough > about that code. > > The code was introduced a long time ago [1] missing ref > > as an attempt to provide netstat-like information. It had simple demo application, which didn't > work for me what didn't work exactly? This is UAPI, if you want to remove it, make sure to provide a good replacement and see if/what is the upstream procedure for UAPI changes/removals, I guess there is such, sending email to a subsystem list doesn't seem enough to me. > > before I started to refactor ib_netlink. > > Also latest fixes from Parav in the actual callback implementation support > my feelings that the kernel part is broken too. > > Is it enough to proceed with the submission of actual patch? -- 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
