On Sun, Aug 02, 2015 at 10:56:38AM +0300, Matan Barak wrote:
> Indeed this design flaw was introduced when the first legacy verb was
> extended. I think that falling back from extended code to legacy code
> should be in the uverbs code. ib_uverbs_write will return -ENOSYS only
> if both extended a
On 8/2/2015 12:48 AM, Or Gerlitz wrote:
On Sat, Aug 1, 2015 at 1:01 AM, Jason Gunthorpe
wrote:
On Sat, Aug 01, 2015 at 12:24:23AM +0300, Or Gerlitz wrote:
addressed in incremental patch, as Doug suggested. Jason, it's wrong
to send developers again and again to fix things which were
perfect
> In many respects, I expect the ib_unregister_device() call to mirror the
> error unwind found in the register call with the modifications for
> dealing with a device that was actually live.
Yes, it should look like that, I also noticed there were ordering
problems in this area. and we probably
On Sat, Aug 1, 2015 at 1:01 AM, Jason Gunthorpe
wrote:
> On Sat, Aug 01, 2015 at 12:24:23AM +0300, Or Gerlitz wrote:
>
>> addressed in incremental patch, as Doug suggested. Jason, it's wrong
>> to send developers again and again to fix things which were
>> perfect in Vn-1 but also not being covere
On 07/31/2015 04:18 PM, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 31, 2015 at 01:41:39PM -0400, Doug Ledford wrote:
>> Please be more specific here. What are you objecting to? Are you
>> objecting to a flush_workqueue from a release() context? Because I
>> don't see anything in the kref documentation
On Sat, Aug 01, 2015 at 12:24:23AM +0300, Or Gerlitz wrote:
> addressed in incremental patch, as Doug suggested. Jason, it's wrong
> to send developers again and again to fix things which were
> perfect in Vn-1 but also not being covered by reviewers on Vn-1, at
> some point the reviewer can't lo
On Fri, Jul 31, 2015 at 8:41 PM, Doug Ledford wrote:
> On 07/31/2015 12:32 PM, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
>> On Fri, Jul 31, 2015 at 08:50:24AM -0400, Doug Ledford wrote:
So... are we ready to go with V7 upstream?
>>> Yes. I've already pulled it in.
>> You are taking the netdev stuff without an
On Fri, Jul 31, 2015 at 01:41:39PM -0400, Doug Ledford wrote:
> Please be more specific here. What are you objecting to? Are you
> objecting to a flush_workqueue from a release() context? Because I
> don't see anything in the kref documentation or the kref
> implementation that prevents or prohi
On 07/31/2015 12:32 PM, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 31, 2015 at 08:50:24AM -0400, Doug Ledford wrote:
>
>>> So... are we ready to go with V7 upstream?
>>
>> Yes. I've already pulled it in.
>
> You are taking the netdev stuff without an ack from netdev??
I've pulled it in, yes. Dave Mi
On Fri, Jul 31, 2015 at 08:50:24AM -0400, Doug Ledford wrote:
> > So... are we ready to go with V7 upstream?
>
> Yes. I've already pulled it in.
You are taking the netdev stuff without an ack from netdev??
I've been too busy too look at v7, but a quick check of the 'move the
cache into core co
On 07/31/2015 05:40 AM, Or Gerlitz wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 30, 2015 at 6:33 PM, Matan Barak wrote:
>
> [...]
>
>> Changes from V6:
>> (1) Addressed Jason's comments:
>> (a) Cache is no longer a client but part of IB infrastructure
>> (b) No need for READ_ONCE and flush_workqueue whe
On Thu, Jul 30, 2015 at 6:33 PM, Matan Barak wrote:
[...]
> Changes from V6:
> (1) Addressed Jason's comments:
> (a) Cache is no longer a client but part of IB infrastructure
> (b) No need for READ_ONCE and flush_workqueue when tearing down
> the cache
Doug
So... ar
12 matches
Mail list logo
