On Wed, Nov 08, 2017 at 02:16:25PM -0600, Gustavo A. R. Silva wrote: > > Quoting Leon Romanovsky <leon@xxxxxxxxxx>: > > > On Tue, Nov 07, 2017 at 08:56:37AM -0600, Gustavo A. R. Silva wrote: > > > > > > Quoting Leon Romanovsky <leon@xxxxxxxxxx>: > > > > > > > On Tue, Nov 07, 2017 at 08:45:17AM -0600, Gustavo A. R. Silva wrote: > > > > > Check on return value and goto label mbx_err are unnecessary. > > > > > > > > > > Addresses-Coverity-ID: 1268780 > > > > > Signed-off-by: Gustavo A. R. Silva <garsilva@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > > > > Reviewed-by: Yuval Shaia <yuval.shaia@xxxxxxxxxx> > > > > > --- > > > > > Changes in v2: > > > > > Remove assignment from "int status = -ENOMEM" as suggested by Leon > > > > > Romanovsky. > > > > > > > > > > drivers/infiniband/hw/ocrdma/ocrdma_hw.c | 6 ++---- > > > > > 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-) > > > > > > > > Please use git send-email to send patches and not reply to the > > > conversation. > > > > > > > > > > I'm using mutt. > > > What would be the advantage of using git send-email in this case? > > > > New mail headers, so it won't appear as Reply-To and will be presented > > correctly in mutt's threaded mode. > > > > Oh I actually did that on purpose. > > So the preferred way to do this is to send the vN of the patch as a reply to > the first patch? > or as a new thread? As a new thread, please. It gives numerous advantages: nice view in mutt, easy followed links in web archives and maintainer's acceptance email as a response to actual vN patch and not to initial patch. Thanks > > Thanks > -- > Gustavo A. R. Silva > > > > > > -- > 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
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
