Hi Tejun, On Wed, Mar 2, 2016 at 11:10 PM, Tejun Heo <tj@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Hello, Parav. > > It doesn't look like my reviews are getting through. For now, > I have addressed all the review comments that you provided in v5 patch. I admit that few comments have not followed CodingStyle and I owe to fix it, which is bad on my part. I have few 2 questions on your comments, I will ask there. For cgroup lock - out of 3 proposals, you acknowledged that you are ok with cgroup specific spin_lock, though you don't see that as big saving. Even though it can be made course gained by having single lock for the whole rdma cgroup subsystem it raises contention among processes of different cgroups, which is preferable to avoid. So I have continued to have cgroup specific fine grain lock, which I believe is ok as this is little efficient for first cut. Including above one we agreed on almost all the points at design and implementation level in previous patches. If you see any issue, I am open to resolve them. I will address comments given in patch v9. > Nacked-by: Tejun Heo <tj@xxxxxxxxxx> > > Thanks. > > -- > tejun -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-doc" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
