On 04/16/2015 07:05 PM, Weiny, Ira wrote: >> >> On Wed, Apr 15, 2015 at 09:58:18AM +0200, Michael Wang wrote: >> >>> We can give client->add() callback a return value and make >>> ib_register_device() return -ENOMEM when it failed, just wondering why >>> we don't do this at first, any special reason? >> >> No idea, but having ib_register_device fail and unwind if a client fails to >> attach >> makes sense to me. > > Yes that is what we should do _but_ > > I think we should tackle that in a different series. > > As you said in another email, this series is getting very long and hard to > review/prove is correct. This is why I was advocating keeping a check at the > top of cm_add_one which verified all Ports supported the CM. This is the > current logic today and is proven to work for the devices/use cases out there. > > We can clean up the initialization code and implement support for individual > ports in follow on patches.
Agree, as long as this series do not introduce any Bug, I suggest we put other reform ideas into next series :-) We have already eliminate the old inferring way and integrate all the cases into helpers, further reform should be far more clear based on this foundation. Regards, Michael Wang > > Ira > -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
