* Re: [E1000-devel] [patch] igb: cleanup igb_enable_mas() a bit
2015-03-19 21:36 [E1000-devel] [patch] igb: cleanup igb_enable_mas() a bit Fujinaka, Todd
@ 2015-03-19 21:42 ` Jeff Kirsher
2015-03-31 18:06 ` Wyborny, Carolyn
` (2 subsequent siblings)
3 siblings, 0 replies; 5+ messages in thread
From: Jeff Kirsher @ 2015-03-19 21:42 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: kernel-janitors
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 497 bytes --]
On Thu, 2015-03-19 at 14:36 -0700, Fujinaka, Todd wrote:
> I'm looking into this and while the code fix is correct, I'm not sure
> the underlying code is correct.
>
> Unfortunately, the person who knows the most about this is out for
> spring break. Can we hold off on this patch?
Understood, I will hold off on pushing this patch upstream until I hear
from Carolyn or you. I will keep it in my dev-queue branch so that
validation and other testing can be done on it in the meantime.
[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 819 bytes --]
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 5+ messages in thread* RE: [E1000-devel] [patch] igb: cleanup igb_enable_mas() a bit
2015-03-19 21:36 [E1000-devel] [patch] igb: cleanup igb_enable_mas() a bit Fujinaka, Todd
2015-03-19 21:42 ` Jeff Kirsher
@ 2015-03-31 18:06 ` Wyborny, Carolyn
2015-03-31 20:10 ` Fujinaka, Todd
2015-04-01 7:57 ` Dan Carpenter
3 siblings, 0 replies; 5+ messages in thread
From: Wyborny, Carolyn @ 2015-03-31 18:06 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: kernel-janitors
[..]
> I'm looking into this and while the code fix is correct, I'm not sure the
> underlying code is correct.
>
> Unfortunately, the person who knows the most about this is out for spring
> break. Can we hold off on this patch?
Yes, the intended fix is good. In addition though, I think igb_enable_mas() should be changed to void and the call to it also modified, since there's no way to fail the enable. A previous implementation had a way to fail, but the current does not.
Thanks,
Carolyn
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 5+ messages in thread
* RE: [E1000-devel] [patch] igb: cleanup igb_enable_mas() a bit
2015-03-19 21:36 [E1000-devel] [patch] igb: cleanup igb_enable_mas() a bit Fujinaka, Todd
2015-03-19 21:42 ` Jeff Kirsher
2015-03-31 18:06 ` Wyborny, Carolyn
@ 2015-03-31 20:10 ` Fujinaka, Todd
2015-04-01 7:57 ` Dan Carpenter
3 siblings, 0 replies; 5+ messages in thread
From: Fujinaka, Todd @ 2015-03-31 20:10 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: kernel-janitors
I have a fix for this already, if Dan doesn't mind.
Todd Fujinaka
Software Application Engineer
Networking Division (ND)
Intel Corporation
todd.fujinaka@intel.com
(503) 712-4565
-----Original Message-----
From: Wyborny, Carolyn
Sent: Tuesday, March 31, 2015 11:07 AM
To: Fujinaka, Todd; Kirsher, Jeffrey T; Dan Carpenter
Cc: e1000-devel@lists.sourceforge.net; kernel-janitors@vger.kernel.org; Allan, Bruce W; Brandeburg, Jesse; Linux NICS; Ronciak, John
Subject: RE: [E1000-devel] [patch] igb: cleanup igb_enable_mas() a bit
[..]
> I'm looking into this and while the code fix is correct, I'm not sure
> the underlying code is correct.
>
> Unfortunately, the person who knows the most about this is out for
> spring break. Can we hold off on this patch?
Yes, the intended fix is good. In addition though, I think igb_enable_mas() should be changed to void and the call to it also modified, since there's no way to fail the enable. A previous implementation had a way to fail, but the current does not.
Thanks,
Carolyn
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 5+ messages in thread
* Re: [E1000-devel] [patch] igb: cleanup igb_enable_mas() a bit
2015-03-19 21:36 [E1000-devel] [patch] igb: cleanup igb_enable_mas() a bit Fujinaka, Todd
` (2 preceding siblings ...)
2015-03-31 20:10 ` Fujinaka, Todd
@ 2015-04-01 7:57 ` Dan Carpenter
3 siblings, 0 replies; 5+ messages in thread
From: Dan Carpenter @ 2015-04-01 7:57 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: kernel-janitors
On Tue, Mar 31, 2015 at 08:10:31PM +0000, Fujinaka, Todd wrote:
> I have a fix for this already, if Dan doesn't mind.
>
I don't mind.
regards,
dan carpenter
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 5+ messages in thread