On Wed, 2015-06-10 at 09:00 -0600, Jason Gunthorpe wrote: > On Wed, Jun 10, 2015 at 11:53:15AM +0300, Or Gerlitz wrote: > > > Jason, can you ack that this post addressed your comments? > > Well, I asked for a cleanup series, multiple times, and this is the > closest things have got. > > It isn't really a cleanup because the whole gid table is new code and > has latent elements for rocev2 - this is why it is so much bigger than > it should be.
I'm not sure the complexity here is "latent RoCEv2" stuff versus simple over-design. I didn't see anything in the RoCEv2 that warranted this level of complexity either. Just to be clear, I'm currently reviewing the RCU usage here. Jason has brought up specific issue, if I can't convince myself that his objections to the RCU usage are wrong, then I'm going to second his request that we go back to a more simplistic rwlock. > The other core parts have been mostly trimmed, so that is the specific > things discussed last round. > > Is it Ok to go ahead with the gid table as is? I don't know, I haven't > studied the patch in any detail. Technically, that is not best > practice for kernel development process. > > Jason -- Doug Ledford <[email protected]> GPG KeyID: 0E572FDD
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
