From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: David Miller Subject: Re: [net-next PATCH v3] igbvf: add new driver to support 82576 virtual functions Date: Wed, 25 Mar 2009 20:34:50 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <20090325.203450.58187435.davem@davemloft.net> References: <49CAD25F.4080705@intel.com> <20090325.201219.98810772.davem@davemloft.net> <5f2db9d90903252027n7079ca54v76c06ec3849c65d9@mail.gmail.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: alexander.h.duyck@intel.com, shemminger@vyatta.com, jeffrey.t.kirsher@intel.com, netdev@vger.kernel.org, gospo@redhat.com To: alexander.duyck@gmail.com Return-path: Received: from 74-93-104-97-Washington.hfc.comcastbusiness.net ([74.93.104.97]:54258 "EHLO sunset.davemloft.net" rhost-flags-OK-FAIL-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1754869AbZCZDfC (ORCPT ); Wed, 25 Mar 2009 23:35:02 -0400 In-Reply-To: <5f2db9d90903252027n7079ca54v76c06ec3849c65d9@mail.gmail.com> Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: From: Alexander Duyck Date: Wed, 25 Mar 2009 20:27:28 -0700 > On Wed, Mar 25, 2009 at 8:12 PM, David Miller wrote: > > From: Alexander Duyck > > Date: Wed, 25 Mar 2009 17:54:55 -0700 > > > >> Since the issue isn't the igbvf driver there is no reason for it to > >> be held up. > > > > I disagree, I think both cases should be fixed. > > > > Just because we do something already never means that it's > > ok to proliferate the mistake further. > > That isn't what I mean. The code he is referring to exists nowhere in > the igbvf driver. I suppose I can edit the igbvf commit comments so > that they don't mention the sysfs entry, but the code is in the igb > driver. I know it's in the igb driver, I fully understand that. And I'm saying it was a mistake to merge that, it slipped past me in my review of that change, and we need to move forward and get rid of this thing.