[PATCH v18 11/15] IB/mlx4: untag user pointers in mlx4_get_umem_mr

[Andrey Konovalov]

On Wed, Jul 17, 2019 at 1:58 PM Jason Gunthorpe <jgg at ziepe.ca> wrote:
>
> On Wed, Jul 17, 2019 at 01:44:07PM +0200, Andrey Konovalov wrote:
> > On Tue, Jul 16, 2019 at 2:06 PM Jason Gunthorpe <jgg at ziepe.ca> wrote:
> > >
> > > On Tue, Jul 16, 2019 at 12:42:07PM +0200, Andrey Konovalov wrote:
> > > > On Mon, Jul 15, 2019 at 8:05 PM Jason Gunthorpe <jgg at ziepe.ca> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > On Mon, Jul 15, 2019 at 06:01:29PM +0200, Andrey Konovalov wrote:
> > > > > > On Mon, Jun 24, 2019 at 7:40 PM Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas at arm.com> wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > On Mon, Jun 24, 2019 at 04:32:56PM +0200, Andrey Konovalov wrote:
> > > > > > > > This patch is a part of a series that extends kernel ABI to allow to pass
> > > > > > > > tagged user pointers (with the top byte set to something else other than
> > > > > > > > 0x00) as syscall arguments.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > mlx4_get_umem_mr() uses provided user pointers for vma lookups, which can
> > > > > > > > only by done with untagged pointers.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Untag user pointers in this function.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Andrey Konovalov <andreyknvl at google.com>
> > > > > > > >  drivers/infiniband/hw/mlx4/mr.c | 7 ++++---
> > > > > > > >  1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Acked-by: Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas at arm.com>
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > This patch also needs an ack from the infiniband maintainers (Jason).
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Hi Jason,
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Could you take a look and give your acked-by?
> > > > >
> > > > > Oh, I think I did this a long time ago. Still looks OK.
> > > >
> > > > Hm, maybe that was we who lost it. Thanks!
> > > >
> > > > > You will send it?
> > > >
> > > > I will resend the patchset once the merge window is closed, if that's
> > > > what you mean.
> > >
> > > No.. I mean who send it to Linus's tree? ie do you want me to take
> > > this patch into rdma?
> >
> > I think the plan was to merge the whole series through the mm tree.
> > But I don't mind if you want to take this patch into your tree. It's
> > just that this patch doesn't make much sense without the rest of the
> > series.
>
> Generally I prefer if subsystem changes stay in subsystem trees. If
> the patch is good standalone, and the untag API has already been
> merged, this is a better strategy.

OK, feel free to take this into your tree, this works for me.

>
> Jason