From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: SF Markus Elfring Subject: Re: IB/core: Fine-tuning for ib_is_udata_cleared() Date: Sun, 21 Aug 2016 22:15:32 +0200 Message-ID: <5e87f691-edb9-0a12-ff7a-59854c2ca2f8@users.sourceforge.net> References: <566ABCD9.1060404@users.sourceforge.net> <1471802623.3746.1.camel@perches.com> <683187e0-2e6a-88c0-f87a-9c5f0489370a@users.sourceforge.net> <1471809188.3746.18.camel@perches.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <1471809188.3746.18.camel-6d6DIl74uiNBDgjK7y7TUQ@public.gmane.org> Sender: linux-rdma-owner-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org To: Joe Perches Cc: linux-rdma-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org, Doug Ledford , Hal Rosenstock , Sean Hefty , LKML , kernel-janitors-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org, Julia Lawall List-Id: linux-rdma@vger.kernel.org >>> Don't introduce a defect in patch 1 and correct >>> that introduced defect in patch 2. >> Which detail do you not like here? > > See above. This feedback is not clearer. I find that the two update steps should work in principle, shouldn't they? I guess that we have got different preferences for the shown patch granularity. Another update variant can follow a bit later with the changes squashed together. Regards, Markus -- 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