> > > > > @@ -1786,9 +1793,10 @@ static struct rdma_id_private > > > > *cma_new_conn_id(struct rdma_cm_id *listen_id, > > > > > ib_event->param.req_rcvd.primary_path->service_id; > > > > > int ret; > > > > > > > > > > - id = rdma_create_id(listen_id->route.addr.dev_addr.net, > > > > > + id = __rdma_create_id(listen_id->route.addr.dev_addr.net, > > > > > listen_id->event_handler, listen_id->context, > > > > > - listen_id->ps, > > > ib_event->param.req_rcvd.qp_type); > > > > > + listen_id->ps, ib_event- > >param.req_rcvd.qp_type, > > > > > + listen_id->caller); > > > > > > > > I think the cleanest way will be to create some struct and pass pointer to > > > it so > > > > you can unfold all relevant data inside of __rdma_create_id(). > > > > > > > > > > Why is that cleaner? Marshall up the data into a struct, pass a ptr, > > > unmarshall it all... > > > > I counted 6 arguments, and for me, it smells like something wrong. > > > > I'll look into changing this. > Changing this will force changing all the applications using rdma_create_id(). I'd rather not do that as part of this series. It dilutes the subject of the series. Does anyone else care either way? Steve. -- 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
