On 04/20/2015 05:51 PM, Tom Tucker wrote: [snip] >>>> int ib_query_gid(struct ib_device *device, >>>> u8 port_num, int index, union ib_gid *gid); >>>> >>> iWARP devices _must_ support the IWCM so cap_iw_cm() is not really useful. >> Sean suggested to add this helper paired with cap_ib_cm(), may be there are >> some consideration on maintainability? >> >> Me too also prefer this way to make the code more readable ;-) > > It's more consistent, but not necessarily more readable -- if by readability > we mean understanding. > > If the reader knows how the transports work, then the reader would be > confused by the addition of a check that is always true. For the reader that > doesn't know, the addition of the check implies that the support is optional, > which it is not.
The purpose is to make sure folks understand what we really want to check when they reviewing the code :-) and prepared for the further reform which may not rely on technology type any more, for example the device could tell core layer directly what management it required with a bitmask :-) Regards, Michael Wang > > Tom > >> Regards, >> Michael Wang >> >>> >> -- >> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-rdma" in >> the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org >> More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html > -- 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/
