Re: [net-next 1/6] e1000e: Avoid wrong check on TX hang

[Michael Wang <wangyun@linux.vnet.ibm.com>]

On 12/05/2011 04:02 PM, Jeff Kirsher wrote:

> On Sun, 2011-12-04 at 23:15 -0800, Michael Wang wrote:
>> On 12/05/2011 02:25 PM, Jeff Kirsher wrote:
>>
>>> On Sun, 2011-12-04 at 17:05 -0800, Michael Wang wrote:
>>>> On 12/04/2011 03:28 PM, Jeff Kirsher wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On Sat, 2011-12-03 at 19:26 -0800, David Miller wrote:
>>>>>> From: Jeff Kirsher <jeffrey.t.kirsher@intel.com>
>>>>>> Date: Sat,  3 Dec 2011 03:44:26 -0800
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> +	if ((!adapter->tx_hang_recheck) &&
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Excessive parenthesis, please remove.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> +		adapter->tx_hang_recheck = 1;
>>>>>>
>>>>>> This variable is a bool, set it to true or false.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> +			adapter->tx_hang_recheck = 0;
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Likewise.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> +	adapter->tx_hang_recheck = 0;
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Likewise.
>>>>>
>>>>> Michael/Flavio -
>>>>>
>>>>> To expedite this patch, I can make the changes that Dave is requesting
>>>>> and re-submit v2 of the patch, if that is ok with you.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Hi, Jeff
>>>>
>>>> That's ok for me, I think it's good if you can work with Dave and make
>>>> out a final version for us, if you want my help, please mail me at any
>>>> time, I'm glad to work with you.
>>>>
>>>> Flavio:
>>>> What's your opinion?
>>>>
>>>> Thanks,
>>>> Michael Wang
>>>
>>> I have the patch read to push, so I will go ahead an push v2 out
>>> tonight.  Since I am making changes to your patch, I will be removing
>>> your signed-off-by (and Flavio's) and keep you as a CC: so that you can
>>> verify the changes I have made to resolve the issues that Dave saw.
>>>
>>
>> Hi, Jeff
>>
>> Is that means you have a better patch which different from ours, and you
>> will use your patch to instead of ours?
>>
>> Because David is just ask for some small change, I think your time zone
>> may be better to work with him, so I ask for your help.
>>
>> I was just confused that why our signed-off-by should be removed?
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Michael Wang
>>
>>> Cheers,
>>> Jeff
> 
> It is your patch (your original work) but since I have made changes to
> your patch, I (or anyone for that matter) should not assume that you as
> the owner would signed off on the changes that I have made based on
> feedback.  It would not be right for me to send out a patch with your
> signed-off-by which is different from what you originally submitted,
> without your ok.  Once I send out the v2 of the patch, please feel free
> to add your signed-off-by OR acked-by to the patch.
> 

Hi, Jeff

That make sense, I'm sorry but because I'm new to the community, and I
just want to make every thing clear so I can do better in the future.

> While I personally do not have a problem keeping you as the owner and
> your signed-off-by, I believe that takes in several assumptions which
> only you as the owner should speak for.  I am not trying to take
> ownership for stats purposes, I care less about the number of patches I
> create and own and would rather make sure that the original owners get
> the credit due for the work they did.
> 


I'm so sorry and I regret if I make you unhappy by some wrong word,
please forgive me.

> So with that, when I send out my next series of patches please feel free
> to ACK or Sign-off on the changes made.  I just wanted to make sure that
> we get these changes in soon (with out delay).
> 
> I can wait if you want to keep ownership of the patch, I just wanted to
> ensure that we get your patch included as soon as possible based on the
> problem it fixes.

Please help us to make the patch perfect, and I'm very glad if I can
have the opportunity to work with you.

Thanks & Best regards
Michael Wang