On Wed, Aug 26, 2015 at 12:43:15PM -0400, Doug Ledford wrote:
That still takes us back to the fact that the locking changes are
unneeded. I'm not opposed to them, but as you mentioned in your first
email, they should go with the changes that require them, and none of
the changes in the first patch require them. Which means that if we
want to keep them, it might be worth splitting them out and giving them
their own patch with an explanation of why they are a benefit (lightly
contended code, saves a release/reacquire on the failure path).
Lets just drop them, the cost for restructing was an added empty lock
grab on a non-error path.
Jason
--
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