On Wed, Feb 20, 2019 at 01:42:14PM -0500, Doug Ledford wrote: > What this really makes me think is that we don't want this alias > device model we have now. We want full ib_device copies No, that would break the API users have today. Today exactly the same device is visible in all the namespaces. We can't swap that out for some other ib_device without impacting *something* user visible. We have too much stuff keyed to the ib_device. > I really don't like the disconnect/reconnect model. There's no reason > someone with a valid namespace association at the time we make this > change should see anything happen. Just tear down what's invalid, and > leave the rest alone. We agreed this exclusive / !exclusive switch is just for compatibility and should be set on boot - I don't think it makes sense to jump through elaborate hoops to make it work a little better. This really only relates to uverbs, if it is really important we could sweep the ufile's for ns conformance and disassociate the wrong ones. Jason
