On Tue, Aug 23, 2016 at 11:43:27 -0700, Leon Romanovsky <leon@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 23, 2016 at 06:13:42PM +0300, Yuval Shaia wrote:
> > On Wed, Aug 03, 2016 at 04:27:33PM -0700, Adit Ranadive wrote:
> > > + */
> > > +int pvrdma_query_port(struct ib_device *ibdev, u8 port,
> > > + struct ib_port_attr *props)
> > > +{
> > > + struct pvrdma_dev *dev = to_vdev(ibdev);
> > > + union pvrdma_cmd_req req;
> > > + union pvrdma_cmd_resp rsp;
> > > + struct pvrdma_cmd_query_port *cmd = &req.query_port;
> > > + struct pvrdma_cmd_query_port_resp *resp = &rsp.query_port_resp;
> > > + int err;
> > > +
> > > + memset(cmd, 0, sizeof(*cmd));
> > > + cmd->hdr.cmd = PVRDMA_CMD_QUERY_PORT;
> > > + cmd->port_num = port;
> > > +
> > > + err = pvrdma_cmd_post(dev, &req, &rsp);
> >
> > Patch order again, this guy is added in patch 7/15 ("IB/pvrdma: Add device
> > command support").
> > Maybe it is only me having trouble to read it so do not want to be a nagger
> > here but don't we have some (hidden) agreement that each patch is atomic
> > and i should be able to compile the kernel after each one?
>
> IMHO, Doug will squash all these patches to one a second before adding
> it into his tree. The patches divided here for easy review.
>
Thanks Leon! I was hoping Doug would do that :).
While I do agree about the fact that each patch should be atomic, I don't know
if it's possible in each case. I'm still new to the upstreaming process so correct
me if I'm wrong.
If it's easier to review I'll be happy to try to keep each patch as independent as possible.
Thanks,
Adit
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-rdma" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
