From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Jason Gunthorpe Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 00/27] IB/Verbs: IB Management Helpers Date: Wed, 22 Apr 2015 10:57:24 -0600 Message-ID: <20150422165724.GC19500@obsidianresearch.com> References: <5534B8C9.506@profitbricks.com> <1429714792.45956.110.camel@redhat.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1429714792.45956.110.camel@redhat.com> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org To: Doug Ledford Cc: Liran Liss , Michael Wang , Roland Dreier , Sean Hefty , Hal Rosenstock , "linux-rdma@vger.kernel.org" , "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" , "hal@dev.mellanox.co.il" , Tom Tucker , Steve Wise , Hoang-Nam Nguyen , "raisch@de.ibm.com" , Mike Marciniszyn , Eli Cohen , Faisal Latif , Jack Morgenstein , Or Gerlitz , Haggai Eran , Ira Weiny , Tom Talpey List-Id: linux-rdma@vger.kernel.org On Wed, Apr 22, 2015 at 10:59:52AM -0400, Doug Ledford wrote: > > 2)The name rdma_tech_* is lame. > > rdma_transport_*(), adhering to the above (*) remark, is much better. > > For example, both IB and ROCE *do* use the same transport. > > I especially want to second this. I haven't really been happy with the > rdma_tech_* names at all. I'm not excited about the names either.. cap_ is bad because it pollutes the global namespace. rdma_tech_ .. as used, this is selecting the standard the port implements. The word 'standard' is a better choice than 'transport', and 'technology' is often synonymous with 'standard'. Meh. I've said it already, but this patch set has probably gotten too big. If we could just do the cap conversion without messing with other stuff, or adding rdma_tech, that would really be the best. Nobody seems to like the rdma_tech parts of this series. I'd also drop '[PATCH v5 09/27] IB/Verbs: Reform IB-core verbs/uverbs_cmd/sysfs' - that is UAPI stuff, it could be done as a followup someday, not worth the risk right now. Jason