On Thu, Sep 20, 2018 at 07:40:39PM +0300, Leon Romanovsky wrote:
> > > The protection is done with global device_lock because it is used in
> > > allocation and deallocation phases. At this stage, this lock is not
> > > busy and easily can be moved to be per-device, once it will be needed.
> > >
>
On Thu, Sep 20, 2018 at 09:15:41AM -0600, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 20, 2018 at 02:21:58PM +0300, Leon Romanovsky wrote:
> > From: Leon Romanovsky
> >
> > Prepare IB device name field to rename operation by ensuring that all
> > accesses to it are protected with lock and users don't see
On Thu, Sep 20, 2018 at 02:21:58PM +0300, Leon Romanovsky wrote:
> From: Leon Romanovsky
>
> Prepare IB device name field to rename operation by ensuring that all
> accesses to it are protected with lock and users don't see part of name.
Oh dear, no, that isn't going to work, there is too much s
On 9/20/2018 6:21 AM, Leon Romanovsky wrote:
> From: Leon Romanovsky
>
> Prepare IB device name field to rename operation by ensuring that all
> accesses to it are protected with lock and users don't see part of name.
>
> The protection is done with global device_lock because it is used in
>
From: Leon Romanovsky
Prepare IB device name field to rename operation by ensuring that all
accesses to it are protected with lock and users don't see part of name.
The protection is done with global device_lock because it is used in
allocation and deallocation phases. At this stage, this lock i
