From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Tejun Heo Subject: Re: [PATCHv1 2/6] IB/core: Added members to support rdma cgroup Date: Thu, 7 Jan 2016 10:07:56 -0500 Message-ID: <20160107150756.GD29797@mtj.duckdns.org> References: <1452020286-9508-1-git-send-email-pandit.parav@gmail.com> <1452020286-9508-3-git-send-email-pandit.parav@gmail.com> <20160105215656.GI5995@mtj.duckdns.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Return-path: DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=sender:date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:references:mime-version :content-type:content-disposition:in-reply-to:user-agent; bh=3NFIt0CDSlKFCOjmN/UI2TXf/Va3yYMC9mrFujd2WtA=; b=dSb8d8taE0BP6fi4D0iGFsNdbPFgX42dljxMFSbF6swPQNiMNA7jvh6X/iPj4Dc9NR DF0N2hSHG1lknPrwpSyPXbut0G2ai0RwS7yR8xHkK9fxK6KxeNybSFPKae+ZEWW2XX9M /EmNcbhhoLrZkcmpBsV515nP+91Uq5+Yy1wB60/SYiGBtbeUOo3kMKkUwiGVSQ/QOhFq tgKAROOcI1ZpTZiJliGd2KbvVT6ZpWdyHqlP4VOwnk7YutTethyJ9jnS4igB1RpbFPsQ bnkoATrBGy1114/Nkis6Tc1h62CnBQmEMcv4qWAieituZAqmVLqPPwMwxoX9SsWxxZaN KRmg== Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: Sender: linux-doc-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: Parav Pandit Cc: cgroups@vger.kernel.org, linux-doc@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-rdma@vger.kernel.org, lizefan@huawei.com, Johannes Weiner , Doug Ledford , Liran Liss , "Hefty, Sean" , Jason Gunthorpe , Haggai Eran , Jonathan Corbet , james.l.morris@oracle.com, serge@hallyn.com, Or Gerlitz , Matan Barak , raindel@mellanox.com, akpm@linux-foundation.org, linux-security-module@vger.kernel.org On Thu, Jan 07, 2016 at 04:46:19AM +0530, Parav Pandit wrote: > On Wed, Jan 6, 2016 at 3:26 AM, Tejun Heo wrote: > > On Wed, Jan 06, 2016 at 12:28:02AM +0530, Parav Pandit wrote: > >> Added function pointer table to store resource pool specific > >> operation for each resource type (verb and hw). > >> Added list node to link device to rdma cgroup so that it can > >> participate in resource accounting and limit configuration. > > > > Is there any point in splitting patches 1 and 2 from 3? > > > Patch 2 is in IB stack, so I separated that patch out from 1. That > makes it 3 patches. > If you think single patch is easier to review, let me know, I can > respin to have one patch for these 3 smaller patches. They don't do anything by themselves. I think putting them into a single patch would be easier to review. Thanks. -- tejun