On Fri, 13 Nov 2015 at 10:47:52 +, Wan, Kaike wrote:
> I don't think so.
> The following patch has rendered this patch unnecessary:
> https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/7526811/
> Kaike
OK, could you please use "Reported-by" tag of my name in your patch
Regards,
Saurabh
--
To unsubscribe
ay, November 13, 2015 2:42 AM
> To: Weiny, Ira; Wan, Kaike
> Cc: Hefty, Sean; hal.rosenst...@gmail.com; dledf...@redhat.com; linux-
> r...@vger.kernel.org; linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
> Subject: Re: [PATCH] IB/sa: replace GFP_KERNEL with GFP_ATOMIC
>
> On Wed, 28 Oct 2015 at 04
ay, November 13, 2015 2:42 AM
> To: Weiny, Ira; Wan, Kaike
> Cc: Hefty, Sean; hal.rosenst...@gmail.com; dledf...@redhat.com; linux-
> r...@vger.kernel.org; linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
> Subject: Re: [PATCH] IB/sa: replace GFP_KERNEL with GFP_ATOMIC
>
> On Wed, 28 Oct 2015 at 04
On Fri, 13 Nov 2015 at 10:47:52 +, Wan, Kaike wrote:
> I don't think so.
> The following patch has rendered this patch unnecessary:
> https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/7526811/
> Kaike
OK, could you please use "Reported-by" tag of my name in your patch
Regards,
Saurabh
--
To unsubscribe
On Wed, 28 Oct 2015 at 04:30:10 +, Weiny, Ira wrote:
> Until we can remove the spinlock the current proposed patch should be applied
> in the interim. Sorry for the noise before.
> Reviewed-By: Ira Weiny
Hi,
is this patch expected to be applied ?
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send
On Wed, 28 Oct 2015 at 04:30:10 +, Weiny, Ira wrote:
> Until we can remove the spinlock the current proposed patch should be applied
> in the interim. Sorry for the noise before.
> Reviewed-By: Ira Weiny
Hi,
is this patch expected to be applied ?
--
To unsubscribe
>
> On Tue, Oct 27, 2015 at 06:56:50PM +, Wan, Kaike wrote:
>
> > > I do wonder if it is a good idea to call ib_nl_send_msg with a
> > > spinlock held though.. Would be nice to see that go away.
> >
> > We have to hold the lock to protect against a race condition that a
> > quick response
On Tue, Oct 27, 2015 at 06:56:50PM +, Wan, Kaike wrote:
> > I do wonder if it is a good idea to call ib_nl_send_msg with a spinlock held
> > though.. Would be nice to see that go away.
>
> We have to hold the lock to protect against a race condition that a
> quick response will try to free
Kaike; linux-
> r...@vger.kernel.org; linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
> Subject: Re: [PATCH] IB/sa: replace GFP_KERNEL with GFP_ATOMIC
>
> On Tue, Oct 27, 2015 at 02:12:36PM -0400, ira.weiny wrote:
> > On Tue, Oct 27, 2015 at 09:17:40PM +0530, Saurabh Sengar wrote:
> > > replace GFP_
On Tue, Oct 27, 2015 at 12:16:52PM -0600, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 27, 2015 at 02:12:36PM -0400, ira.weiny wrote:
> > On Tue, Oct 27, 2015 at 09:17:40PM +0530, Saurabh Sengar wrote:
> > > replace GFP_KERNEL with GFP_ATOMIC, as code while holding a spinlock
> > > should be atomic
> > >
On Tue, Oct 27, 2015 at 02:12:36PM -0400, ira.weiny wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 27, 2015 at 09:17:40PM +0530, Saurabh Sengar wrote:
> > replace GFP_KERNEL with GFP_ATOMIC, as code while holding a spinlock
> > should be atomic
> > GFP_KERNEL may sleep and can cause deadlock, where as GFP_ATOMIC may
> >
On Tue, Oct 27, 2015 at 09:17:40PM +0530, Saurabh Sengar wrote:
> replace GFP_KERNEL with GFP_ATOMIC, as code while holding a spinlock
> should be atomic
> GFP_KERNEL may sleep and can cause deadlock, where as GFP_ATOMIC may
> fail but certainly avoids deadlock
Great catch. Thanks!
However,
On Tue, Oct 27, 2015 at 09:17:40PM +0530, Saurabh Sengar wrote:
> replace GFP_KERNEL with GFP_ATOMIC, as code while holding a spinlock
> should be atomic
> GFP_KERNEL may sleep and can cause deadlock, where as GFP_ATOMIC may
> fail but certainly avoids deadlock
Great catch. Thanks!
However,
On Tue, Oct 27, 2015 at 02:12:36PM -0400, ira.weiny wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 27, 2015 at 09:17:40PM +0530, Saurabh Sengar wrote:
> > replace GFP_KERNEL with GFP_ATOMIC, as code while holding a spinlock
> > should be atomic
> > GFP_KERNEL may sleep and can cause deadlock, where as GFP_ATOMIC may
> >
On Tue, Oct 27, 2015 at 12:16:52PM -0600, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 27, 2015 at 02:12:36PM -0400, ira.weiny wrote:
> > On Tue, Oct 27, 2015 at 09:17:40PM +0530, Saurabh Sengar wrote:
> > > replace GFP_KERNEL with GFP_ATOMIC, as code while holding a spinlock
> > > should be atomic
> > >
Kaike; linux-
> r...@vger.kernel.org; linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
> Subject: Re: [PATCH] IB/sa: replace GFP_KERNEL with GFP_ATOMIC
>
> On Tue, Oct 27, 2015 at 02:12:36PM -0400, ira.weiny wrote:
> > On Tue, Oct 27, 2015 at 09:17:40PM +0530, Saurabh Sengar wrote:
> > > replace GFP_
On Tue, Oct 27, 2015 at 06:56:50PM +, Wan, Kaike wrote:
> > I do wonder if it is a good idea to call ib_nl_send_msg with a spinlock held
> > though.. Would be nice to see that go away.
>
> We have to hold the lock to protect against a race condition that a
> quick response will try to free
>
> On Tue, Oct 27, 2015 at 06:56:50PM +, Wan, Kaike wrote:
>
> > > I do wonder if it is a good idea to call ib_nl_send_msg with a
> > > spinlock held though.. Would be nice to see that go away.
> >
> > We have to hold the lock to protect against a race condition that a
> > quick response
18 matches
Mail list logo