On Tue, Aug 23, 2016 at 06:52:28PM +0000, Adit Ranadive wrote:
> 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.
I don't expect more than one cycle of review. Please resubmit your
series with latest fixes so it will have enough time before 4.9 will
close.
Thanks.
>
> Thanks,
> Adit
>
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
