From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Dan Williams Subject: Re: [PATCH] New driver "sfc" for Solarstorm SFC4000 controller (try #7) Date: Mon, 03 Mar 2008 14:22:55 -0500 Message-ID: <1204572175.16248.5.camel@localhost.localdomain> References: <20080303185624.GC2988@solarflare.com> <20080303.110206.36977456.davem@davemloft.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: bhutchings@solarflare.com, netdev@vger.kernel.org To: David Miller Return-path: Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([66.187.233.31]:52398 "EHLO mx1.redhat.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751815AbYCCT0D (ORCPT ); Mon, 3 Mar 2008 14:26:03 -0500 In-Reply-To: <20080303.110206.36977456.davem@davemloft.net> Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Mon, 2008-03-03 at 11:02 -0800, David Miller wrote: > From: Ben Hutchings > Date: Mon, 3 Mar 2008 18:56:24 +0000 > > > The patch (against netdev-2.6) is at: > > https://support.solarflare.com/netdev/7/netdev-2.6-sfc-2.2.0106.patch > > Nobody can properly review the driver if it's off on some external web > site instead of posted here. The diff is 707K; I certainly thought that netdev had a message size limit. What's the proper policy on splitting up _new_ drivers? There may/may not be a good way of splitting up any given new driver for piecemeal in-line review. If there's not, what's the alternative? Dan