> -----Original Message----- > From: linux-rdma-owner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:linux-rdma- > owner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Steve Wise > Sent: Wednesday, January 31, 2018 2:56 PM > To: Parav Pandit <parav@xxxxxxxxxxxx>; dledford@xxxxxxxxxx; Jason > Gunthorpe <jgg@xxxxxxxxxxxx> > Cc: linux-rdma@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; leon@xxxxxxxxxx > Subject: RE: [PATCH RFC 2/2] RDMA/nldev: provide detailed CM_ID information > > > > 182,6 +199,7 @@ static int fill_res_info(struct sk_buff *msg, struct > ib_device > > > *device) > > > [RDMA_RESTRACK_PD] = "pd", > > > [RDMA_RESTRACK_CQ] = "cq", > > > [RDMA_RESTRACK_QP] = "qp", > > > + [RDMA_RESTRACK_CM_ID] = "cm_id", > > > > May be rdmacm_id a better name to avoid confusion with ib_cm/iw_cm ids? > > Eventually, I could see the ib_cm and/or iw_cm info also getting dumped as part Yes. But it is still coming through id of rdmacm_id as transport id information. > of this. So perhaps the name "cm_id" is ok? It's just that longer name removes the ambiguity. I am not too particular about this particular naming. > I prefer it also because its shorter (lazy typer! :) ) Sure, shorter names are useful to end user. But I think this is handled well at iproute2 tool level. For example below two commands achieves the same task. #ip address show #ip a s So may be shorter naming at command level is better left at user space tool level. -- 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
