[PATCH 0/2] net/mlx4_core: clean up two functions

[PATCH 0/2] net/mlx4_core: clean up two functions

[Paul Bolle]

0) These two patches are very similar. They both clean up a function to
help GCC understand the codeflow. Both help silence a warning.

1) Compile tested only (on 32 bits x86). I do not have this hardware.

2) Please note that there's no MAINTAINERS entry for mlx4_core. (Neither
is there an entry for the MLX4 IB driver.) Shouldn't it be added? 

Paul Bolle (2):
  net/mlx4_core: clean up cq_res_start_move_to()
  net/mlx4_core: clean up srq_res_start_move_to()

 .../net/ethernet/mellanox/mlx4/resource_tracker.c  | 96 ++++++++--------------
 1 file changed, 35 insertions(+), 61 deletions(-)

-- 
1.8.4.2

Re: [PATCH 0/2] net/mlx4_core: clean up two functions

[David Miller]

From: Paul Bolle <pebolle@tiscali.nl>
Date: Tue, 07 Jan 2014 14:00:22 +0100

> 0) These two patches are very similar. They both clean up a function to
> help GCC understand the codeflow. Both help silence a warning.
> 
> 1) Compile tested only (on 32 bits x86). I do not have this hardware.
> 
> 2) Please note that there's no MAINTAINERS entry for mlx4_core. (Neither
> is there an entry for the MLX4 IB driver.) Shouldn't it be added? 

These patches have been rotting for a week.  I know the mlx4 folks
said the SRIOV guy inside Mellanox will look at it, but this is taking
way too long.

This is absolutely unreasonable from Paul's perspective to have to wait
this long for a review of these relatively simple patches.

Re: net/mlx4_core: clean up two functions

[Amir Vadai]

On 13/01/14 11:13 -0800, David Miller wrote:
> From: Paul Bolle <pebolle@tiscali.nl>
> Date: Tue, 07 Jan 2014 14:00:22 +0100
> 
> > 0) These two patches are very similar. They both clean up a function to
> > help GCC understand the codeflow. Both help silence a warning.
> > 
> > 1) Compile tested only (on 32 bits x86). I do not have this hardware.
> > 
> > 2) Please note that there's no MAINTAINERS entry for mlx4_core. (Neither
> > is there an entry for the MLX4 IB driver.) Shouldn't it be added? 
> 
> These patches have been rotting for a week.  I know the mlx4 folks
> said the SRIOV guy inside Mellanox will look at it, but this is taking
> way too long.
> 
> This is absolutely unreasonable from Paul's perspective to have to wait
> this long for a review of these relatively simple patches.

You're absolutely right.
And yes, jack is very busy.
We will have a reply ready tomorrow morning.

Amir


> --
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
> the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
> More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
> Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/