> On 1/26/2017 8:44 AM, Amrani, Ram wrote:
> >> I took these, but I would like to point out a couple things. First,
> >> the commit messages could use some work. I fixed a number of them up.
> >> Also, a fix to formatting isn't really an -rc fix. I took it, but
> >> next time let's be more selective on our submission please.
> >>
> >
> > Thanks.
> > I have reviewed your changes for next time. I understood all but these:
> >
> > I thought that introducing formatting fixes and making functions static are
> > simplifying and risk free operations that are acceptable.
>
> Yes and no. They are risk free, but they also provide 0 benefit to the
> actual running of the kernel. Therefore, to reduce churn during -rc
> cycle kernels, you would normally not submit them. You would hold on to
> them until the next merge window.
>
> > I now understand,
> > and correct me if I'm wrong, that only if it's important fix it should be introduced.
>
> Correct.
>
> > Sometimes I see IB/vendor and sometimes RDMA/vendor. When to use each?
>
> I'm trying to transition people over to using RDMA/* as much as possible
> because the stack is much more than just IB these days. But if someone
> sends me patches that have IB/ as the prefix, I don't go in and modify
> every subject line. So, when I modified your subject lines, I used
> RDMA, the IB subject lines you see in my current queue are from other
> people.
>
OK
Ram
��.n��������+%������w��{.n�����{���fk��ܨ}���Ơz�j:+v�����w����ޙ��&�)ߡ�a����z�ޗ���ݢj��w�f
