From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from pentafluge.infradead.org (pentafluge.infradead.org [213.146.154.40]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (Client did not present a certificate) by ozlabs.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6037967D4C for ; Fri, 15 Dec 2006 04:35:58 +1100 (EST) Date: Thu, 14 Dec 2006 17:35:34 +0000 From: Christoph Hellwig To: Linas Vepstas Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/14] Spidernet DMA coalescing Message-ID: <20061214173534.GA3452@infradead.org> References: <20061213210010.GR4329@austin.ibm.com> <20061213210659.GA1915@austin.ibm.com> <20061214110517.GA13377@infradead.org> <20061214170737.GS4329@austin.ibm.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii In-Reply-To: <20061214170737.GS4329@austin.ibm.com> Cc: Andrew Morton , Arnd Bergmann , netdev@vger.kernel.org, Christoph Hellwig , linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org, Jens Osterkamp , jgarzik@pobox.com, James K Lewis List-Id: Linux on PowerPC Developers Mail List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , On Thu, Dec 14, 2006 at 11:07:37AM -0600, Linas Vepstas wrote: > Being unclear on the concept, should a send a new version of this patch, > or should I send a new patch that removes this? For just the memset issue an incremental patch would be fine. But given the small mistake in the patch description a resend with the fixed description mighrt be in order here.