On Tue, Jun 30, 2020 at 02:31:16PM +0300, Yishai Hadas wrote: > On 6/30/2020 1:18 PM, Leon Romanovsky wrote: > > From: Leon Romanovsky <leonro@xxxxxxxxxxxx> > > > > Move struct ib_rwq_ind_table allocation to ib_core. > > > > Signed-off-by: Leon Romanovsky <leonro@xxxxxxxxxxxx> > > --- > > drivers/infiniband/core/device.c | 1 + > > drivers/infiniband/core/uverbs_cmd.c | 37 ++++++++++++------- > > drivers/infiniband/core/uverbs_std_types.c | 16 +++++--- > > drivers/infiniband/core/verbs.c | 23 ------------ > > drivers/infiniband/hw/mlx4/main.c | 4 +- > > drivers/infiniband/hw/mlx4/mlx4_ib.h | 12 +++--- > > drivers/infiniband/hw/mlx4/qp.c | 40 ++++++-------------- > > drivers/infiniband/hw/mlx5/main.c | 3 ++ > > drivers/infiniband/hw/mlx5/mlx5_ib.h | 8 ++-- > > drivers/infiniband/hw/mlx5/qp.c | 43 +++++++++------------- > > include/rdma/ib_verbs.h | 11 +++--- > > 11 files changed, 85 insertions(+), 113 deletions(-) <...> > > + > > + if (rwq_ind_tbl->device->ops.destroy_rwq_ind_table) > > + rwq_ind_tbl->device->ops.destroy_rwq_ind_table(rwq_ind_tbl); > > > We had here two notes from previous review that need to be settled, ref > count decrement before object destruction (high priority) and considering > the existance of both alloc/destroy functions from driver point of view from > symetic reasons. (low priority). > > Let's get Jason's feedback here please. I'm confident that Jason will give his feedback like he always does while accepting/declining patches. It goes without saying. >From my point of view, there is nothing to change. Thanks
