On 08/27/2015 07:33 PM, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
> 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.
I've reworked the patch to not perform any locking changes and applied
the result.
--
Doug Ledford <dledford@xxxxxxxxxx>
GPG KeyID: 0E572FDD
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
