On Sat, Jan 12, 2019 at 05:20:19PM +0000, Parav Pandit wrote: > > > > From: Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@xxxxxxxx> > > Sent: Saturday, January 12, 2019 11:14 AM > > To: Parav Pandit <parav@xxxxxxxxxxxx> > > Cc: Leon Romanovsky <leon@xxxxxxxxxx>; Doug Ledford > > <dledford@xxxxxxxxxx>; Leon Romanovsky <leonro@xxxxxxxxxxxx>; RDMA > > mailing list <linux-rdma@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > Subject: Re: [PATCH rdma-next 3/7] RDMA/core: Introduce helper functions > > for cache cleanup, update > > > > On Sat, Jan 12, 2019 at 04:39:25AM +0000, Parav Pandit wrote: > > > > > + > > > > > +void ib_device_cache_update(struct ib_device *device); void > > > > > +ib_gid_table_cleanup_one(struct ib_device *device); > > > > > > > > This is super goofy, why do we have a 'cleanup' followed by 'update' > > > > API design? > > > Cleanup removes all entries from the gid table. > > > > The work 'cleanup' should be a final act, there shouldn't be another touch to > > the datastructure until it is re-inited. So either 'cleanup' or 'update' are the > > wrong words for what these functions are doing. > > > Update is wrong word. A wrapper such as reinit() for a update() would help? Sure, but if we have reinit do we need the two steps to be exposed? Jason
