From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Jason Gunthorpe Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/4] IB/hfi1: Restore EPROM read ability Date: Mon, 26 Sep 2016 11:42:04 -0600 Message-ID: <20160926174204.GE22965@obsidianresearch.com> References: <20160925144724.13602.38549.stgit@scvm10.sc.intel.com> <20160925144926.13602.47716.stgit@scvm10.sc.intel.com> <20160926165247.GB12011@obsidianresearch.com> <4AF12E8016D2BF46BCDFCE8FAA77A3580BE0838F@FMSMSX103.amr.corp.intel.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <4AF12E8016D2BF46BCDFCE8FAA77A3580BE0838F-AtyAts71sc9Qxe9IK+vIArfspsVTdybXVpNB7YpNyf8@public.gmane.org> Sender: linux-rdma-owner-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org To: "Luick, Dean" Cc: "Dalessandro, Dennis" , "dledford-H+wXaHxf7aLQT0dZR+AlfA@public.gmane.org" , "linux-rdma-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org" , "Hariharan, Easwar" List-Id: linux-rdma@vger.kernel.org > > If it is not being used by userpsace then do not call copy_to_user... > > The first patch in the series is a straight (partial) restore of the > old code. This is what you are commenting on. The second patch > does a "fixup" of the restored code and removes this call. Should > we squash patches 1 and 2 so that this never shows up? It is a > question of how much "show your work" is desired. Yes, squish them - do not make patches that are wrong and then fix them up later in the series without a really good reason... Jason -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-rdma" in the body of a message to majordomo-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html