From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1947770AbcBRUIM (ORCPT ); Thu, 18 Feb 2016 15:08:12 -0500 Received: from shards.monkeyblade.net ([149.20.54.216]:46485 "EHLO shards.monkeyblade.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1947689AbcBRUID (ORCPT ); Thu, 18 Feb 2016 15:08:03 -0500 Date: Thu, 18 Feb 2016 15:08:01 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <20160218.150801.1433459291829189521.davem@davemloft.net> To: m-karicheri2@ti.com Cc: grygorii.strashko@ti.com, netdev@vger.kernel.org, arnd@arndb.de, fcooper@ti.com, nsekhar@ti.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, w-kwok2@ti.com, mugunthanvnm@ti.com Subject: Re: [PATCH] net: ti: netcp: restore get/set_pad_info() functionality From: David Miller In-Reply-To: <56C5FBA6.3040204@ti.com> References: <1455026303-17014-1-git-send-email-grygorii.strashko@ti.com> <20160216.152421.2271194730635382792.davem@davemloft.net> <56C5FBA6.3040204@ti.com> X-Mailer: Mew version 6.6 on Emacs 24.5 / Mule 6.0 (HANACHIRUSATO) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Greylist: Sender succeeded SMTP AUTH, not delayed by milter-greylist-4.5.12 (shards.monkeyblade.net [149.20.54.216]); Thu, 18 Feb 2016 12:08:03 -0800 (PST) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org From: Murali Karicheri Date: Thu, 18 Feb 2016 12:13:10 -0500 > On 02/16/2016 03:24 PM, David Miller wrote: >> >> I would like some of the feedback to be taken into consideration and >> integrated into this patch. >> >> Part of the reason this regression was introduced was probably because >> the purpose of some fields or descriptor semantics was not defined >> properly. >> >> Therefore it is absolutely appropriate to properly name and document >> these fields as part of the bug fix. >> >> Thank you. >> > David, > > I will take over this from Grygorii as he is out of office. > > I propose to keep this patch as is and add additional patch to address > the feedback in the same series (v1). Is that fine with you? No, I want the code to be clarified along with the bug fix so that this bug is unlikely to resurface.