On Wed, Nov 15, 2017 at 02:10:54PM -0800, Bryan Tan wrote: > On Tue, Nov 14, 2017 at 08:15:26PM -0700, Jason Gunthorpe wrote: > > On Tue, Nov 14, 2017 at 06:49:25PM -0800, Bryan Tan wrote: > > > > > Thanks for your suggestion, Jason. I've opened up a new pull request > > > that includes the original commit for SRQ support that has been > > > reverted, along with the one line change you suggested. Let me know if > > > you prefer something different. I've run the travis build on kernels > > > both with and without the new ABI header as well. > > > > You should swap the order of the two patches and move the change of > > buildlib/fixup-include/rdma-vmw_pvrdma-abi.h to the other patch. > > > > Then the description of the abi.h patch would just be: > > > > 'Update rdma-core to the latest kernel pvrdma-abi.h header' > > > > Then everything is more self contained. > > > > You can do this and force push a update to your PR. > > Got it, I've done a force push with the new commits. There were two > other items that were in the kernel ABI header and not in the > fixup-include header, so I've also fixed that. > > Unfortunately, I also missed adding the macro I am testing for in > RDMA_LinuxHeaders.cmake in the kernel ABI header ): so I sent out a > patch to fix that. This should not be a problem, as the test for > PVRDMA_UAR_SRQ_OFFSET will make sure we use the header from > fixup-include for now, until the kernel patch is accepted. No, it is a problem. You sent two patches, while the PR passes the compilation on my machine, the first patch alone doesn't. Every patch should be standalone. Please fix. > > Going forward, I'll copy the ABI header file to make sure they are > synced up and I don't make this mistake again. > > Thanks! > Bryan > > > > > Jason
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
