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

On Mon, May 16, 2016 at 01:42:34PM -0400, Doug Ledford wrote:

On 05/16/2016 12:30 PM, Leon Romanovsky wrote:

quoted

On Mon, May 16, 2016 at 11:09:44AM -0400, Doug Ledford wrote:

quoted

On 05/15/2016 06:51 AM, Mark Bloch wrote:

quoted

quoted

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)?

Can you build netlink in and then init the ib_addr module after the
netlink init is complete?  Wouldn't that resolve the dependency ordering
issue without changing the module names?

It seems reasonable and we will test it, before reposting.

However generally speaking, I agree with Jason and Ira that this module
(ib_addr.ko) is useless as module and can be part of ib_core.ko.

It doesn't seem as a big deal to fix all that init scripts (remove two
lines).

-- 
Doug Ledford [off-list ref]
              GPG KeyID: 0E572FDD