Re: [PATCH rdma-next V2 5/5] IB/core: Integrate IB address resolution module into core

[Leon Romanovsky <leon-DgEjT+Ai2ygdnm+yROfE0A@public.gmane.org>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1486 bytes --]

On Mon, May 16, 2016 at 11:09:44AM -0400, Doug Ledford wrote:
> On 05/15/2016 06:51 AM, Mark Bloch wrote:
> 
> >> But, just as importantly, after reading addr.c to see how it uses the ibnl
> >> infrastructure, I don't even see what the original problem can be.
> > As it stands today:
> > - ibnl is part of ib_core.
> > - ib_core needs ib_addr.
> > 
> > So if we add ibnl usage to ib_addr it means ib_addr will need ib_core,
> > which causes a dependency cycle.
> 
> Right, but in that case, this patch needs to be part of the series that
> adds the ibnl support into the ib_addr functionality.  Because you split
> them into separate series, this was a patch looking for a problem to
> solve and it wasn't clear what it was.  If I had taken the other series
> and not this series, it would have broken things.  So please keep
> patches like this together with the other patches that depend on it.
> 
> That said, I also don't want to redo modules if we don't have to.  As my
> previous email points out, changing modules breaks init scripts and
> systemd unit files.  It is to be avoided when possible.

Sorry,
I was in the mood of fixing things when I wrote and sent this patch.
The question is which version will you more likely to accept: this one
(remove ib_addr module) or previous one (add ib_netlink module)?

Thanks.
> 
> 
> -- 
> Doug Ledford <dledford-H+wXaHxf7aLQT0dZR+AlfA@public.gmane.org>
>               GPG KeyID: 0E572FDD
> 
> 



[-- Attachment #2: Digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 819 bytes --]