From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S934308AbcIUO0v (ORCPT ); Wed, 21 Sep 2016 10:26:51 -0400 Received: from mail-yw0-f193.google.com ([209.85.161.193]:33014 "EHLO mail-yw0-f193.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1755321AbcIUO0r (ORCPT ); Wed, 21 Sep 2016 10:26:47 -0400 Date: Wed, 21 Sep 2016 10:26:45 -0400 From: Tejun Heo To: Parav Pandit Cc: Leon Romanovsky , Jason Gunthorpe , Christoph Hellwig , Matan Barak , cgroups@vger.kernel.org, linux-doc@vger.kernel.org, Linux Kernel Mailing List , linux-rdma@vger.kernel.org, Li Zefan , Johannes Weiner , Doug Ledford , Liran Liss , "Hefty, Sean" , Haggai Eran , Jonathan Corbet , james.l.morris@oracle.com, serge@hallyn.com, Or Gerlitz , Andrew Morton , linux-security-module@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCHv12 1/3] rdmacg: Added rdma cgroup controller Message-ID: <20160921142645.GB10734@htj.duckdns.org> References: <20160910170151.GA5230@obsidianresearch.com> <20160911133421.GA23384@lst.de> <20160911143522.GL6415@leon.nu> <20160911171409.GA13442@obsidianresearch.com> <20160911172445.GA25953@lst.de> <20160911175235.GB13442@obsidianresearch.com> <20160912050717.GE8812@leon.nu> <20160915185629.GF26069@leon.nu> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.7.0 (2016-08-17) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Hello, Parav. On Wed, Sep 21, 2016 at 10:13:38AM +0530, Parav Pandit wrote: > We have completed review from Tejun, Christoph. > HFI driver folks also provided feedback for Intel drivers. > Matan's also doesn't have any more comments. > > If possible, if you can also review, it will be helpful. > > I have some more changes unrelated to cgroup in same files in both the git tree. > Pushing them now either results into merge conflict later on for > Doug/Tejun, or requires rebase and resending patch. > If you can review, we can avoid such rework. My impression of the thread was that there doesn't seem to be enough of consensus around how rdma resources should be defined. Is that part agreed upon now? Thanks. -- tejun