From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Dennis Dalessandro Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 3/5] IB/hfi1: Add ioctl() interface for user commands Date: Fri, 13 May 2016 10:33:47 -0400 Message-ID: <20160513143346.GA6665@phlsvsds.ph.intel.com> References: <20160512171115.6198.77458.stgit@scvm10.sc.intel.com> <20160512171846.6198.31415.stgit@scvm10.sc.intel.com> <20160512174332.GB13553@obsidianresearch.com> <20160512192726.GB15146@phlsvsds.ph.intel.com> <20160512194006.GA6364@obsidianresearch.com> <20160512212821.GC6545@obsidianresearch.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20160512212821.GC6545@obsidianresearch.com> Sender: linux-fsdevel-owner@vger.kernel.org To: Jason Gunthorpe Cc: Doug Ledford , Mike Marciniszyn , linux-rdma@vger.kernel.org, Mitko Haralanov , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, Ira Weiny List-Id: linux-rdma@vger.kernel.org On Thu, May 12, 2016 at 03:28:21PM -0600, Jason Gunthorpe wrote: >On Thu, May 12, 2016 at 03:48:16PM -0400, Doug Ledford wrote: >> were going to rip out the EEPROM code. In any case, the best fix would >> be to rebase the two series that are remaining and move any "rip out >> things like eeprom support" patches to prior to the ioctl patches and >> make it so that they rip out the write interface version of it instead, >> and then squash a second copy of the ioctl removal into this patch. > >Yes, this would look best The end result will end up being the exact same code so I don't have a problem doing that. Perhaps it would be better if I just combine the two patch sets into one series? I still need to look more into the kobj stuff about the cdev, if needed I'll add a patch for that as well. -Denny