On Wed, Sep 07, 2016 at 08:37:23PM +0530, Parav Pandit wrote:
> Hi Leon,
>
> >> Signed-off-by: Parav Pandit <pandit.parav@gmail.com>
> >> +static struct rdmacg_resource_pool *
> >> +get_cg_rpool_locked(struct rdma_cgroup *cg, struct rdmacg_device *device)
> >> +{
> >> +     struct rdmacg_resource_pool *rpool;
> >> +
> >> +     rpool = find_cg_rpool_locked(cg, device);
> >> +     if (rpool)
> >> +             return rpool;
> >> +
> >> +     rpool = kzalloc(sizeof(*rpool), GFP_KERNEL);
> >> +     if (!rpool)
> >> +             return ERR_PTR(-ENOMEM);
> >> +
> >> +     rpool->device = device;
> >> +     set_all_resource_max_limit(rpool);
> >> +
> >> +     INIT_LIST_HEAD(&rpool->cg_node);
> >> +     INIT_LIST_HEAD(&rpool->dev_node);
> >> +     list_add_tail(&rpool->cg_node, &cg->rpools);
> >> +     list_add_tail(&rpool->dev_node, &device->rpools);
> >> +     return rpool;
> >> +}
> >
> > <...>
> >
> >> +     for (p = cg; p; p = parent_rdmacg(p)) {
> >> +             rpool = get_cg_rpool_locked(p, device);
> >> +             if (IS_ERR_OR_NULL(rpool)) {
> >
> > get_cg_rpool_locked always returns !NULL (error, or pointer)
>
> Can this change go as incremental change after this patch, since this
> patch is close to completion?
> Or I need to revise v13?

Sure, it is cleanup. It is not worth of respinning.

>
> >
> >> +                     ret = PTR_ERR(rpool);
> >> +                     goto err;
> >
> > I didn't review the whole series yet.
>
> Did you get a chance to review the series?

We need to decide on fundamental question before reviewing it, which is
"how to fit rdmacg to new ABI model".

Thanks