Tue, Jan 30, 2018 at 04:07:16PM CET, leon@xxxxxxxxxx wrote:
>From: Leon Romanovsky <leonro@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
>
>The nldev was implemented by following devlink implementation,
>including SET/DEL/NEW commands. However these commands were not
>implemented and hence don't need to be exposed.
>
>Signed-off-by: Leon Romanovsky <leonro@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
>---
> include/uapi/rdma/rdma_netlink.h | 14 ++++++--------
> 1 file changed, 6 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-)
>
>diff --git a/include/uapi/rdma/rdma_netlink.h b/include/uapi/rdma/rdma_netlink.h
>index 17e59bec169e..4c77e2a7b07e 100644
>--- a/include/uapi/rdma/rdma_netlink.h
>+++ b/include/uapi/rdma/rdma_netlink.h
>@@ -227,16 +227,14 @@ enum rdma_nldev_command {
> RDMA_NLDEV_CMD_UNSPEC,
>
> RDMA_NLDEV_CMD_GET, /* can dump */
>- RDMA_NLDEV_CMD_SET,
>- RDMA_NLDEV_CMD_NEW,
>- RDMA_NLDEV_CMD_DEL,
>
>- RDMA_NLDEV_CMD_PORT_GET, /* can dump */
>- RDMA_NLDEV_CMD_PORT_SET,
>- RDMA_NLDEV_CMD_PORT_NEW,
>- RDMA_NLDEV_CMD_PORT_DEL,
>+ /* 2 - 4 are free to use */
>
>- RDMA_NLDEV_CMD_RES_GET, /* can dump */
>+ RDMA_NLDEV_CMD_PORT_GET = 5, /* can dump */
>+
>+ /* 6 - 8 are free to use */
I don't see reason for the wholes. Also, Don't you use *_NEW for replies
to *_GET, as it is common for Netlink?
But anyway, I would rather have them in, or don't have them in but don't
leave holes for them.
>+
>+ RDMA_NLDEV_CMD_RES_GET = 9, /* can dump */
>
> RDMA_NLDEV_CMD_RES_QP_GET, /* can dump */
>
>--
>2.16.1
>
>--
>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
--
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
