On Wed, Mar 09, 2016 at 02:58:04PM +0100, 'Christoph Hellwig' wrote: > On Tue, Mar 08, 2016 at 09:55:14PM +0200, Leon Romanovsky wrote: > > > At the expense of replicating this code and forcing all users to remember to set this. > > > > There are no much such users to update, these users need to set > > qp_init_attr structure anyway. > > But they need to extract the port_num first, while we already get > the cm_id that has the right port_id passed to this function. Not > setting it in the qp_init_attr changes the interface from one that > just works to one that is arcane, and prone to generate hard to > detect errors (passing a 0 port_num will just work for all current > drivers, but if someone at some point actually introduces different > capabilities for differnet ports it will break for just that case!) I understand your points and my claim is similar to yours, but from different side. I think that setting qp_init_attr field separately from the place there all variables were set is prone to errors. > -- > 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 target-devel" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
