From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Igor Stoppa Subject: Re: [PATCH] infiniband: nes: add unlikely() to assert() Date: Fri, 7 Sep 2018 18:25:03 +0300 Message-ID: References: <20180831192418.12346-1-igor.stoppa@huawei.com> <20180905060106.GI2977@mtr-leonro.mtl.com> <811a6feca9fdea2db59ac392a4711cd897f46cc7.camel@redhat.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <811a6feca9fdea2db59ac392a4711cd897f46cc7.camel@redhat.com> Content-Language: en-US Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org To: Doug Ledford , Leon Romanovsky Cc: Faisal Latif , Igor Stoppa , Chien Tung , Roland Dreier , Jason Gunthorpe , linux-rdma@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-rdma@vger.kernel.org On 07/09/18 18:13, Doug Ledford wrote: > This patch was part of a larger series on lkml. In that context, I > acked it so that the series could be applied by whomever took it (it > didn't belong on rdma-list as a series since only one patch out of some > large number touched rdma files). Now it is being resent as not part of > a series, but my ack was preserved. Yes, apologies for the confusion (and maybe wrong process?). The patchset as a whole didn't seem to gain traction, so I decided to fallback to the more tedious process of submitting them individually. Since the specific patch was not altered, I assumed the ack was still valid - I am sorry if I did it wrongly -- igor