[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <812ce9a19d55ed16af677622a39ee484eb9c508f.camel@mellanox.com>
Date: Mon, 28 Jan 2019 19:11:01 +0000
From: Saeed Mahameed <saeedm@...lanox.com>
To: Leon Romanovsky <leonro@...lanox.com>,
"saeedm@....mellanox.co.il" <saeedm@....mellanox.co.il>
CC: Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@...lanox.com>,
"netdev@...r.kernel.org" <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-rdma@...r.kernel.org" <linux-rdma@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH mlx5-next 0/4] mlx5 next misc updates
On Sun, 2019-01-27 at 07:51 +0000, Leon Romanovsky wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 25, 2019 at 10:08:00AM -0800, Saeed Mahameed wrote:
> > On Thu, Jan 24, 2019 at 4:30 AM Leon Romanovsky <
> > leonro@...lanox.com> wrote:
> > > On Fri, Jan 18, 2019 at 04:33:09PM -0800, Saeed Mahameed wrote:
> > > > Hi all,
> > > >
> > > > This series includes updates to mlx5-next shared branch.
> > > >
> > > > 1) from Jason, improve mlx5_cmd_exec_cb async API to be safer
> > > > 2) from Maxim Mikityanskiy, cleanups for mlx5_write64 doorbell
> > > > API
> > > > 3) from Michael Guralnik, Add pci AtomicOps request
> > > >
> > > > Thanks,
> > > > Saeed.
> > > >
> > > > ---
> > > >
> > > > Jason Gunthorpe (1):
> > > > net/mlx5: Make mlx5_cmd_exec_cb() a safe API
> > > >
> > > > Michael Guralnik (1):
> > > > net/mlx5: Add pci AtomicOps request
> > >
> > > Those two were applied to mlx5-next branch.
> > >
> > > ce4eee5340a9 (mlx5-next) net/mlx5: Add pci AtomicOps request
> > > e355477ed9e4 net/mlx5: Make mlx5_cmd_exec_cb() a safe API
> > >
> > > > Maxim Mikityanskiy (2):
> > > > net/mlx5: Remove unused MLX5_*_DOORBELL_LOCK macros
> > > > net/mlx5: Remove spinlock support from mlx5_write64
> > >
> > > Those two needs extra work,
> >
> > What extra work ?
>
> You got two comments for area you are touching:
> 1. Replace _rww writes to something else.
Not related to this cleanup patchset.
> 2. Protect with spinlock 32-bits writes instead of ignoring it.
Same as above, I already explained this.
>
> Both of those changes will touch the same 2-4 lines and there
> is very little benefit in creating more than one-two patches
> just for that.
>
Future work, as it needs verification and careful testing.
Leon I would like to move on with those 2 small cleanup patches, no
functionality change here, please confirm you are ok with them.
Thanks,
Saeed.
> Thanks
>
> > > Thanks
> > >
> > > > --
> > > > 2.20.1
> > > >
Powered by blists - more mailing lists