Re: [PATCH v3 07/28] IB/Verbs: Reform IB-ulp ipoib

[Michael Wang]

On 04/14/2015 08:21 PM, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 14, 2015 at 06:02:47PM +0000, Hefty, Sean wrote:
>>> Yes, that is the only reasonable thing that could happen.
>>>
>>> init failure should only be possible under exceptional cases (OOM).
>>>
>>> The only system response is to call ib_umad_add_one again - so of
>>> course the first call had to completely clean up everything it did.
>>
>> A reasonable follow up change would be to replace the add device
>> callbacks with add port callbacks.
> 
> Yes, combined with a port argument to ib_set_client_data /
> ib_get_client_data it would be a nice simplifying clean up.
> 
> It would be nice to have sane error handling too :( In an ideal world
> the add call back should return an error and the thing that triggered
> it should unwind back to module load failure.

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?

Regards,
Michael Wang

> 
> Jason
> 
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/