On 09/03/2015 05:23 PM, Jason Gunthorpe wrote: > On Thu, Sep 03, 2015 at 05:17:31PM -0400, Doug Ledford wrote: >> On 08/27/2015 07:33 PM, Jason Gunthorpe wrote: >>> 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. >> >> I've reworked the patch to not perform any locking changes and applied >> the result. > > Thanks Doug, I've been too busy to look at this..
You're welcome ;-)
--
Doug Ledford <dledf...@redhat.com>
GPG KeyID: 0E572FDD
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
