[Suspected-Phishing]Re: [PATCH v2 1/1] nvme-rdma: Fix memory leak during queue allocation

[Sagi Grimberg]

>> In order to destroy QP using 1 API instead of 2.
>> We can leave it "rdma_destroy_qp(queue->cm_id);", here it's safe.
>>
> 
> should I leave it rdma_destroy_qp(queue->cm_id) or modify it to 
> ib_destroy_qp(queue->qp) ?

Yes

>>>> @@ -563,8 +573,8 @@ static void nvme_rdma_free_queue(struct 
>>>> nvme_rdma_queue *queue)
>>>>       if (!test_and_clear_bit(NVME_RDMA_Q_ALLOCATED, &queue->flags))
>>>>           return;
>>>> -    nvme_rdma_destroy_queue_ib(queue);
>>>>       rdma_destroy_id(queue->cm_id);
>>>> +    nvme_rdma_destroy_queue_ib(queue);
>>>
>>> Why was this changed? What race are you preventing here?
>>
>> No race here, just wanted to align the order of destruction and make 
>> sure we don't get any rdma_cm events during queue_ib destruction as we 
>> did above.
>>
>> Do you prefer leaving these 2 lines "as is" and add comments in the 
>> code ?
> 
> what is prefered here ?

Keep it as is