On Sun, 2017-01-08 at 08:22 +0200, Leon Romanovsky wrote: > On Fri, Jan 06, 2017 at 11:11:31AM -0500, David Miller wrote: > > > > From: Leon Romanovsky <leonro@xxxxxxxxxxxx> > > Date: Fri, 6 Jan 2017 08:06:09 +0200 > > > > > > > > On Thu, Jan 05, 2017 at 03:07:31PM -0500, David Miller wrote: > > > > > > > > From: Eli Cohen <eli@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > > > Date: Thu, 5 Jan 2017 14:03:18 -0600 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > If necessary I can make sure it builds on 32 bits as well. > > > > > > > > Please do. > > > > > > Dave, > > > > > > I'm failing to understand the benefits of building mlx5 on 32 > > > bits, and > > > see only disadvantages: > > > * It is actual dead code without test coverage. > > > * It misleads reviewers/customers by seeing code for 32 bits. > > > * It adds compilation time for 32 bits platforms and "punishes" > > > them > > > for not relevant for them driver. > > > > > > Why do you call removing all that as a "regression"? > > > > We have this thing called "CONFIG_COMPILE_TEST", it has tons of > > value, > > perhaps you've seen it before? > > Thanks David, > I see your point. What's the status update on this. Unless I'm missing it in my rdma mailing list (which is always possible if I scan subjects too fast), I don't see a v2 of this pull request, but I also don't see that David's concerns have been addressed, nor that he has pulled this. -- Doug Ledford <dledford@xxxxxxxxxx> GPG KeyID: B826A3330E572FDD Key fingerprint = AE6B 1BDA 122B 23B4 265B 1274 B826 A333 0E57 2FDD
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
