Thu, Feb 09, 2023 at 11:46:04AM CET, alejandro.lucero-palau@xxxxxxx wrote:
>
>On 2/8/23 15:24, Lucero Palau, Alejandro wrote:
>> On 2/8/23 14:38, Jiri Pirko wrote:
>>> Wed, Feb 08, 2023 at 03:25:13PM CET, alejandro.lucero-palau@xxxxxxx wrote:
>>>> From: Alejandro Lucero <alejandro.lucero-palau@xxxxxxx>
>>> [..]
>>>
>>>
>>>> +static int efx_devlink_info_get(struct devlink *devlink,
>>>> + struct devlink_info_req *req,
>>>> + struct netlink_ext_ack *extack)
>>>> +{
>>>> + struct efx_devlink *devlink_private = devlink_priv(devlink);
>>>> + struct efx_nic *efx = devlink_private->efx;
>>>> + int rc;
>>>> +
>>>> + /* Several different MCDI commands are used. We report first error
>>>> + * through extack along with total number of errors. Specific error
>>>> + * information via system messages.
>>> I think you forgot to remove this comment.
>>>
>>> With this nit fixed, free free to add:
>>> Reviewed-by: Jiri Pirko <jiri@xxxxxxxxxx>
>>>
>> I'll do.
>>
>> Thanks
>
>Just wondering if this single nit deserves a v7 or better to delay it as
>another patch.
>
>We got another patchset for ef100 ready to be sent and we would prefer
>to not delay this one more than needed.
Cleaner would be v7, but I don't mind that much. Let the patchbot to
decide :)
