On Wed, Dec 13, 2017 at 04:17:59PM -0800, Bryan Tan wrote: > > Do some cleanup and fixes related to the comments received during SRQ > support upstreaming that applied to existing code. Also add in two > missed macros used by the userlevel library for SRQs, a missed > ib_umem_release, an incorrect usage of the new refcount_t type, > and switched from use of wait queues to completions. > > v0 -> v1 changelog: > - Removed use of BIT() in UAPI header > - Make setting/usage of is_kernel consistent between QP/CQ/SRQ > - Use completions instead of wait queues for resource destroy > - Cleaned up commit messages This series would be fine for -next, the patches look OK to me now. But there are too many non-rc things to be for-rc. If you want this in -rc for some reason then you need to send a series with just those commits, otherwise it will go to -next. These fix actual bugs and could be for-rc > RDMA/vmw_pvrdma: Call ib_umem_release on destroy QP path > RDMA/vmw_pvrdma: Use refcount_dec_and_test to avoid warning > RDMA/vmw_pvrdma: Use completion instead of wait queue These are clearly not for-rc: > RDMA/vmw_pvrdma: Use more specific sizeof in kcalloc > RDMA/vmw_pvrdma: Use refcount_t instead of atomic_t Does this fix a bug or is it just a style change? Can't tell: > RDMA/vmw_pvrdma: Clarify QP and CQ is_kernel logic These two are boarder line. Would need a better commit message explaining why these need to be in -rc: > RDMA/vmw_pvrdma: Remove usage of BIT() from UAPI header > RDMA/vmw_pvrdma: Add UAR SRQ macros in ABI header file Let me know what you want. 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
