RE: [PATCH RFC 2/2] RDMA/nldev: provide detailed CM_ID information

-----Original Message-----
From: linux-rdma-owner-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org [mailto:linux-rdma-
owner-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org] On Behalf Of Steve Wise
Sent: Wednesday, January 31, 2018 2:56 PM
To: Parav Pandit <parav-VPRAkNaXOzVWk0Htik3J/w@public.gmane.org>; dledford-H+wXaHxf7aLQT0dZR+AlfA@public.gmane.org; Jason
Gunthorpe [off-list ref]
Cc: linux-rdma-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org; leon-DgEjT+Ai2ygdnm+yROfE0A@public.gmane.org
Subject: RE: [PATCH RFC 2/2] RDMA/nldev: provide detailed CM_ID information

quoted

quoted

182,6 +199,7 @@ static int fill_res_info(struct sk_buff *msg, struct

ib_device

quoted

quoted

*device)
 		[RDMA_RESTRACK_PD] = "pd",
 		[RDMA_RESTRACK_CQ] = "cq",
 		[RDMA_RESTRACK_QP] = "qp",
+		[RDMA_RESTRACK_CM_ID] = "cm_id",

May be rdmacm_id a better name to avoid confusion with ib_cm/iw_cm ids?

Eventually, I could see the ib_cm and/or iw_cm info also getting dumped as part

Yes. But it is still coming through id of rdmacm_id as transport id information.

of this.  So perhaps the name "cm_id" is ok? 

It's just that longer name removes the ambiguity.
I am not too particular about this particular naming.

I prefer it also because its shorter (lazy typer! :) )

Sure, shorter names are useful to end user.
But I think this is handled well at iproute2 tool level.
For example below two commands achieves the same task.
#ip address show
#ip a s
So may be shorter naming at command level is better left at user space tool level.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-rdma" in
the body of a message to majordomo-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html