From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Jason Gunthorpe Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] IB/ipoib: Clean up send-only multicast joins Date: Tue, 25 Aug 2015 12:22:33 -0600 Message-ID: <20150825182233.GA20744@obsidianresearch.com> References: <1440200053-18890-1-git-send-email-jgunthorpe@obsidianresearch.com> <55DCAACD.3000307@redhat.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <55DCAACD.3000307-H+wXaHxf7aLQT0dZR+AlfA@public.gmane.org> Sender: linux-rdma-owner-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org To: Doug Ledford Cc: linux-rdma-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org List-Id: linux-rdma@vger.kernel.org On Tue, Aug 25, 2015 at 01:50:05PM -0400, Doug Ledford wrote: > On 08/21/2015 07:34 PM, Jason Gunthorpe wrote: > > Even though we don't expect the group to be created by the SM we > > sill need to provide all the parameters to force the SM to validate > > they are correct. > > Why does this patch embed locking changes that, as far I can tell, are > not needed by the rest of the patch? test_bit was lowered into ipoib_mcast_join, which requires pushing the lock unlock down as well. The set_bit side holds that lock. > If the locking changes are needed for some reason, then they likely > need to be their own patch with their own changelog. It doesn't make sense to move the locking without the code motion that motivates it, IMHO. Jason -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-rdma" in the body of a message to majordomo-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html