On Wed, Jul 17, 2019 at 1:58 PM Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@xxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Wed, Jul 17, 2019 at 01:44:07PM +0200, Andrey Konovalov wrote: > > On Tue, Jul 16, 2019 at 2:06 PM Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@xxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > > On Tue, Jul 16, 2019 at 12:42:07PM +0200, Andrey Konovalov wrote: > > > > On Mon, Jul 15, 2019 at 8:05 PM Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@xxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > On Mon, Jul 15, 2019 at 06:01:29PM +0200, Andrey Konovalov wrote: > > > > > > On Mon, Jun 24, 2019 at 7:40 PM Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@xxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Mon, Jun 24, 2019 at 04:32:56PM +0200, Andrey Konovalov wrote: > > > > > > > > This patch is a part of a series that extends kernel ABI to allow to pass > > > > > > > > tagged user pointers (with the top byte set to something else other than > > > > > > > > 0x00) as syscall arguments. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > mlx4_get_umem_mr() uses provided user pointers for vma lookups, which can > > > > > > > > only by done with untagged pointers. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Untag user pointers in this function. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Andrey Konovalov <andreyknvl@xxxxxxxxxx> > > > > > > > > drivers/infiniband/hw/mlx4/mr.c | 7 ++++--- > > > > > > > > 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-) > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Acked-by: Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@xxxxxxx> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > This patch also needs an ack from the infiniband maintainers (Jason). > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi Jason, > > > > > > > > > > > > Could you take a look and give your acked-by? > > > > > > > > > > Oh, I think I did this a long time ago. Still looks OK. > > > > > > > > Hm, maybe that was we who lost it. Thanks! > > > > > > > > > You will send it? > > > > > > > > I will resend the patchset once the merge window is closed, if that's > > > > what you mean. > > > > > > No.. I mean who send it to Linus's tree? ie do you want me to take > > > this patch into rdma? > > > > I think the plan was to merge the whole series through the mm tree. > > But I don't mind if you want to take this patch into your tree. It's > > just that this patch doesn't make much sense without the rest of the > > series. > > Generally I prefer if subsystem changes stay in subsystem trees. If > the patch is good standalone, and the untag API has already been > merged, this is a better strategy. OK, feel free to take this into your tree, this works for me. > > Jason
