It is in Dave's tree:
commit 5fe9dec0d045437e48f112b8fa705197bd7bc3c0
Author: Eli Cohen <eli@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Tue Jan 3 23:55:25 2017 +0200
IB/mlx5: Use blue flame register allocator in mlx5_ib
Make use of the blue flame registers allocator at mlx5_ib. Since blue
flame was not really supported we remove all the code that is related to
blue flame and we let all consumers to use the same blue flame register.
Once blue flame is supported we will add the code. As part of this patch
we also move the definition of struct mlx5_bf to mlx5_ib.h as it is only
used by mlx5_ib.
Signed-off-by: Eli Cohen <eli@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
Reviewed-by: Matan Barak <matanb@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
Signed-off-by: Leon Romanovsky <leon@xxxxxxxxxx>
Signed-off-by: Saeed Mahameed <saeedm@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
-----Original Message-----
From: Doug Ledford [mailto:dledford@xxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Tuesday, January 24, 2017 10:45 AM
To: Leon Romanovsky <leonro@xxxxxxxxxxxx>; David Miller <davem@xxxxxxxxxx>
Cc: eli@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; Saeed Mahameed <saeedm@xxxxxxxxxxxx>; netdev@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; linux-rdma@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; Eli Cohen <eli@xxxxxxxxxxxx>; Matan Barak <matanb@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [for-next 07/10] IB/mlx5: Use blue flame register allocator in mlx5_ib
On Sun, 2017-01-08 at 08:22 +0200, Leon Romanovsky wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 06, 2017 at 11:11:31AM -0500, David Miller wrote:
> >
> > From: Leon Romanovsky <leonro@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > Date: Fri, 6 Jan 2017 08:06:09 +0200
> >
> > >
> > > On Thu, Jan 05, 2017 at 03:07:31PM -0500, David Miller wrote:
> > > >
> > > > From: Eli Cohen <eli@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > > > Date: Thu, 5 Jan 2017 14:03:18 -0600
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > If necessary I can make sure it builds on 32 bits as well.
> > > >
> > > > Please do.
> > >
> > > Dave,
> > >
> > > I'm failing to understand the benefits of building mlx5 on 32
> > > bits, and see only disadvantages:
> > > * It is actual dead code without test coverage.
> > > * It misleads reviewers/customers by seeing code for 32 bits.
> > > * It adds compilation time for 32 bits platforms and "punishes"
> > > them
> > > for not relevant for them driver.
> > >
> > > Why do you call removing all that as a "regression"?
> >
> > We have this thing called "CONFIG_COMPILE_TEST", it has tons of
> > value, perhaps you've seen it before?
>
> Thanks David,
> I see your point.
What's the status update on this. Unless I'm missing it in my rdma mailing list (which is always possible if I scan subjects too fast), I don't see a v2 of this pull request, but I also don't see that David's concerns have been addressed, nor that he has pulled this.
--
Doug Ledford <dledford@xxxxxxxxxx>
GPG KeyID: B826A3330E572FDD
Key fingerprint = AE6B 1BDA 122B 23B4 265B 1274 B826 A333 0E57 2FDD
��.n��������+%������w��{.n�����{���fk��ܨ}���Ơz�j:+v�����w����ޙ��&�)ߡ�a����z�ޗ���ݢj��w�f
