On Wed, Nov 15, 2017 at 12:11 AM, Parav Pandit <parav@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> From: Or Gerlitz [mailto:gerlitz.or@xxxxxxxxx] >> On Tue, Nov 14, 2017 at 2:52 PM, Leon Romanovsky <leon@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> > From: Parav Pandit <parav@xxxxxxxxxxxx> >> > >> > When path ah_attr initialization from path record fails, >> > ib_cm_send_rej() uses av.ah_attr fields to send out reject message. In >> > such cases initialization of path record software fields is not >> > needed. Code is simplified for same. >> >> is "Code is simplified for same" cut in the middle, I fail to understand the >> sentence. >> > Code is simplified to avoid such initialization. so fix that in the next version, ok? >> You do two logical changes in one patch, doesn't seem right to me. > Both logical changes are in same function few lines apart around GID check. > So Hal and I continued to have in one patch. As long as it's not terribly problematic, patch has to carry one logical change, I don't see why not apply this practice here too. -- 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
