From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org Received: from lists.ozlabs.org (lists.ozlabs.org [112.213.38.117]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 3C316C54E41 for ; Tue, 5 Mar 2024 14:54:42 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: lists.ozlabs.org; dkim=fail reason="signature verification failed" (2048-bit key; unprotected) header.d=intel.com header.i=@intel.com header.a=rsa-sha256 header.s=Intel header.b=bQ5yDmlL; dkim-atps=neutral Received: from boromir.ozlabs.org (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by lists.ozlabs.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4Tpz9r2zhJz3vfg for ; Wed, 6 Mar 2024 01:54:40 +1100 (AEDT) Authentication-Results: lists.ozlabs.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key; unprotected) header.d=intel.com header.i=@intel.com header.a=rsa-sha256 header.s=Intel header.b=bQ5yDmlL; dkim-atps=neutral Authentication-Results: lists.ozlabs.org; spf=none (no SPF record) smtp.mailfrom=linux.intel.com (client-ip=192.198.163.7; helo=mgamail.intel.com; envelope-from=andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com; receiver=lists.ozlabs.org) Received: from mgamail.intel.com (mgamail.intel.com [192.198.163.7]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by lists.ozlabs.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4Tpz922SMmz307y for ; Wed, 6 Mar 2024 01:53:57 +1100 (AEDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=intel.com; i=@intel.com; q=dns/txt; s=Intel; t=1709650439; x=1741186439; h=date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:references: mime-version:in-reply-to; bh=0dOILnGFoAvtiNpVkLvJTAajQBVZzcEdsS8kcLekRAc=; b=bQ5yDmlLIEB7rAWnPNB4GYrUH4JzXW7ZiAb6W9qenXhiTtRj1KzAmZzK lTbep2OxZsK05adD3v9DI7X+wYXtzT46XDkkbpbo0Ec0CEyILjywkvBe1 wO2jsC3UXnrURwkdQAF1GiQ6MVpdelNK0m4uy1UnVwydQqVDDdbiqInzV RzRKIiumGddh3ydsC3PPm1RXvzCMP6Iwm3pziLVvYnV/rAeBwF/7MO38k Hpo9+m6VmC+CBmZzrtNPKttkchwC9zsPCd6SbVo0OQzF5Jeh95In16MQE zXXkZF37GwnnvkfRnSGzXlP6s6CX0r864PsqCmLmQtqL9tlTPhlBRTJ+8 A==; X-IronPort-AV: E=McAfee;i="6600,9927,11003"; a="29628518" X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="6.06,205,1705392000"; d="scan'208";a="29628518" Received: from fmsmga002.fm.intel.com ([10.253.24.26]) by fmvoesa101.fm.intel.com with ESMTP/TLS/ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 05 Mar 2024 06:53:55 -0800 X-ExtLoop1: 1 X-IronPort-AV: E=McAfee;i="6600,9927,11003"; a="914142173" X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="6.06,205,1705392000"; d="scan'208";a="914142173" Received: from smile.fi.intel.com ([10.237.72.54]) by fmsmga002.fm.intel.com with ESMTP/TLS/ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 05 Mar 2024 06:53:50 -0800 Received: from andy by smile.fi.intel.com with local (Exim 4.97) (envelope-from ) id 1rhWAt-0000000A0d6-1ywE; Tue, 05 Mar 2024 16:53:47 +0200 Date: Tue, 5 Mar 2024 16:53:47 +0200 From: Andy Shevchenko To: Herve Codina Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 0/5] Add support for QMC HDLC Message-ID: References: <20240229141554.836867-1-herve.codina@bootlin.com> <20240305120226.791bfe9a@bootlin.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20240305120226.791bfe9a@bootlin.com> Organization: Intel Finland Oy - BIC 0357606-4 - Westendinkatu 7, 02160 Espoo X-BeenThere: linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: Linux on PowerPC Developers Mail List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Cc: Andrew Lunn , Vadim Fedorenko , Yury Norov , netdev@vger.kernel.org, Rasmus Villemoes , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Eric Dumazet , Mark Brown , Thomas Petazzoni , Jakub Kicinski , Paolo Abeni , linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org, "David S. Miller" Errors-To: linuxppc-dev-bounces+linuxppc-dev=archiver.kernel.org@lists.ozlabs.org Sender: "Linuxppc-dev" On Tue, Mar 05, 2024 at 12:02:26PM +0100, Herve Codina wrote: > On Thu, 29 Feb 2024 17:23:32 +0200 > Andy Shevchenko wrote: ... > > I think it's a good series and next version will be final. The only question is > > possible use of the returned values from bitmap_scatter()/bitmap_gather(), the > > rest are minors. > > I replied about the reason why I didn't return any values from > bitmap_{scatter,gather}() in that patch 4 discussion. > > Are you ok to keep them returning void in this series ? Sure. We can amend that later if needed. -- With Best Regards, Andy Shevchenko