On 10.08.25 16:46, Dust Li wrote: > I've been wondering whether we should completely remove the ISM concept > from SMC. Including rename smc_ism.c into smc_dibs.c. > > Since DIBS already serves as the replacement for ISM, having both ISM > and DIBS coexist in the codebase seems a bit confusing and inconsistent. > Removing ISM could help streamline the code and improve clarity. > > Best regards, > Dust I second that. Like I wrote in the last commit message: "[RFC net-next 17/17] net/dibs: Move event handling to dibs layer ... SMC-D and ISM are now independent. struct ism_dev can be moved to drivers/s390/net/ism.h. Note that in smc, the term 'ism' is still used. Future patches could replace that with 'dibs' or 'smc-d' as appropriate." I am not sure what would be the best way to do such a global replacement. One big patch on top of dibs-series? That would be a lot of changes without adding any functionality. Or do you have other clarity improvements in the pipeline that could be combined? I would like to defer that decision to the smc maintainers. Would that be ok for you?
