Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67;
Date:   Wed, 11 Jul 2018 15:38:34 +0200
From:   Dominique Martinet <asmadeus@codewreck.org>
To:     Matthew Wilcox <willy@infradead.org>
Cc:     v9fs-developer@lists.sourceforge.net,
        Latchesar Ionkov <lucho@ionkov.net>,
        Eric Van Hensbergen <ericvh@gmail.com>,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org,
        Ron Minnich <rminnich@sandia.gov>
Subject: Re: [V9fs-developer] [PATCH 0/6] 9p: Use IDRs more effectively
Message-ID: <20180711133834.GA27521@nautica>
References: <20180628132629.3148-1-willy@infradead.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20180628132629.3148-1-willy@infradead.org>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

Matthew Wilcox wrote on Thu, Jun 28, 2018:
> The 9p code doesn't take advantage of the IDR's ability to store
> a pointer.  We can actually get rid of the p9_idpool abstraction
> and the multi-dimensional array of requests.
> 
> I haven't tested these patches, so caveat maintainer.

Overall pretty good for something that hadn't even been tested!

I'm done with the comments here, the three other patches I didn't
comment look good to me.

For [PATCH 4/6] 9p: Remove an unnecessary memory barrier, your suggested
wording in the comment is good; I've offered to do it if you aren't
going to but since you're submitting a second version of the other
patchs I suggest you do this one as well.


Thanks for the well-needed cleanup,
-- 
Dominique Martinet