On 2017-11-02 14:53:19 [-0600], Logan Gunthorpe wrote: > Hey, Hey Logan, > Note: This patch should have been v4. > > I tested it and it now works. good. > However, this whole concept still gets a NAK from me. I think it makes the > code less clear for no obvious reason. Thank you for letting me go all that way… > I feel if RT needs to change the completions they should make two versions > waitable and non-waitable and use them where appropriate. I'd much rather > not push the completion logic into the driver layer. You should not touch the inside of an implementation. > Logan Sebastian
