On Tue, Aug 25, 2015 at 01:50:05PM -0400, Doug Ledford wrote: > On 08/21/2015 07:34 PM, Jason Gunthorpe wrote: > > Even though we don't expect the group to be created by the SM we > > sill need to provide all the parameters to force the SM to validate > > they are correct. > > Why does this patch embed locking changes that, as far I can tell, are > not needed by the rest of the patch?
test_bit was lowered into ipoib_mcast_join, which requires pushing the lock unlock down as well. The set_bit side holds that lock. > If the locking changes are needed for some reason, then they likely > need to be their own patch with their own changelog. It doesn't make sense to move the locking without the code motion that motivates it, IMHO. Jason -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-rdma" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
