Hello, Parav. On Tue, Apr 05, 2016 at 07:25:11AM -0700, Parav Pandit wrote: > > As it is a fairly isolated domain, to certain extent, it could be okay > > to let it go. At the same time, I know that these enterprise things > > tend to go completely wayward and am worried about individual drivers > > going crazy with custom attributes in a non-sensical way. > > If its crazy at driver level, I am sure it will be equally crazy for > any end-user too. Therefore no user would use those crazy resources > either.
So, the above paragraph simply isn't true. It's not difficult to twist things bit so that things work in a hackish and often horrible way and we know this happens quite a bit, especially in enterprise settings. > Intent is certainly not for the individual drivers as we agreed in > past. You and I agreeing to that doesn't really matter all that much. > IB stack maintainers would be reviewing new enum addition > anyway, whether its verb or hw resource (unlikely). Well, if the additions are unlikely... > > In the original review message, I mentioned creating an interface > > which creates the hierarchy of objects as necessary and returns the > > target pool with lock held, can you please give it a shot? Something > > like the following. > > o.k. I will attempt. Looks doable. > I am on travel so it will take few more days for me to turn around > with below approach with tested code. So, if you go with single mutex, you don't really need get_and_lock semantics, you can just call the get function with mutex held. Please do whichever looks best. Thanks. -- tejun -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-doc" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
