[openib-general] Re: [PATCH] kDAPL: remove typedef DAT_PROVIDER

[James Lentini]

Tom,

If you are interested, there is one more thing you could look 
into/give me advice on:

The dat module currently keeps track of its "state" (see the 
DAT_REGISTRY_STATE enumeration). The registry uses this information to 
detect the case when a provider or consumer calls a dat registry 
function before the registry's init function (dat_init) has run. 

Do we need to protect against this in the kernel?

This situation could occur in usersapce when the registry, providers, 
and consumers could be shared libraries and the library initialization 
functions were invoked in an arbitrary order.

I suspect that we can remove the code, but I wanted to make sure. If 
the dat registry, dat provider, and a consumer (e.g. NFS-RDMA) were 
built statically as part of the kernel, would the initialization 
functions be automatically run in the correct order? 

james

On Mon, 9 May 2005, Tom Duffy wrote:

tduffy> On Mon, 2005-05-09 at 14:06 -0400, James Lentini wrote:
tduffy> > Committed revision 2287.
tduffy> > 
tduffy> > On Fri, 6 May 2005, Tom Duffy wrote:
tduffy> > 
tduffy> > tduffy> James, thanks for applying my last patch.
tduffy> > tduffy> 
tduffy> > tduffy> You know where I am going with this... this is the first in what will be
tduffy> > tduffy> a huge amount of patches.  I am happy to go through and send them all to
tduffy> > tduffy> the list, but it might be quicker and easier for you to do it directly
tduffy> > tduffy> to your tree for all the structs and enums.  Sup to you.
tduffy> > tduffy> 
tduffy> 
tduffy> So, did you want me to continue with sending these type of patches?
tduffy> 
tduffy> -tduffy
tduffy>