On Mon, Oct 09, 2023 at 09:03:41PM +0530, Krishna Kurapati PSSNV wrote: > > > On 10/9/2023 8:51 PM, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote: > > > > > > diff --git a/Documentation/usb/gadget-testing.rst b/Documentation/usb/gadget-testing.rst > > > > > index 29072c166d23..6e5d96668e8e 100644 > > > > > --- a/Documentation/usb/gadget-testing.rst > > > > > +++ b/Documentation/usb/gadget-testing.rst > > > > > @@ -448,15 +448,17 @@ Function-specific configfs interface > > > > > The function name to use when creating the function directory is "ncm". > > > > > The NCM function provides these attributes in its function directory: > > > > > - =============== ================================================== > > > > > - ifname network device interface name associated with this > > > > > - function instance > > > > > - qmult queue length multiplier for high and super speed > > > > > - host_addr MAC address of host's end of this > > > > > - Ethernet over USB link > > > > > - dev_addr MAC address of device's end of this > > > > > - Ethernet over USB link > > > > > - =============== ================================================== > > > > > + ================= ==================================================== > > > > > + ifname network device interface name associated with this > > > > > + function instance > > > > > + qmult queue length multiplier for high and super speed > > > > > + host_addr MAC address of host's end of this > > > > > + Ethernet over USB link > > > > > + dev_addr MAC address of device's end of this > > > > > + Ethernet over USB link > > > > > + max_segment_size Segment size required for P2P connections. This > > > > > + will inturn set MTU to (max_segment_size - 14 bytes) > > > > > > > > "inturn"??? > > > > > > > > > + ================= ==================================================== > > > > > > > > What commit id does this fix? > > > > > > > This is not a bug fix. It is just an addition of a new property. Does it > > > need a fixes tag ? > > > > Where is the code for the new property? > > > > Ah, it's in patch 2/2, that wasn't obvious, sorry. Why is this a > > separate patch at all, shouldn't be part of the commit that adds the new > > property to the system? > > > > Sorry. I followed the practice of splitting patches like we usually do. Will > club them up in a single patch in v2. Thanks for pointing this mistake. Splitting is fine, but don't ask us to review documentation before the feature is even presented, that's reading backwards :)
