[openib-general] Re: [PATCH] RFC Verbs: add support for transport specific verbs

[Michael S. Tsirkin]

Quoting Tom Tucker <tom at opengridcomputing.com>:
> > Using process_mad as an example, we would add all 7 function 
> > prototypes directly to ib_device.
> 
> ... And in fact in the end there will be more.

Oh, I hope not much more.

> This separation allows
> one transport to change without impacting the other.

What kind of impact does adding some new field have?

My point is, I have to test whether the function is implemented anyway,
so why add two checks: one for device type, another for function
implementation? Its complicated and inefficient.

The gain in memory usgae by using union is neglidgible, since its per
device and we dont have that many devices.

-- 
Michael S. Tsirkin
Staff Engineer, Mellanox Technologies