On Wed, Aug 26, 2015 at 12:43:15PM -0400, Doug Ledford wrote: > That still takes us back to the fact that the locking changes are > unneeded. I'm not opposed to them, but as you mentioned in your first > email, they should go with the changes that require them, and none of > the changes in the first patch require them. Which means that if we > want to keep them, it might be worth splitting them out and giving them > their own patch with an explanation of why they are a benefit (lightly > contended code, saves a release/reacquire on the failure path). Lets just drop them, the cost for restructing was an added empty lock grab on a non-error path. Jason -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-rdma" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
