From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Ron Mercer Subject: Re: [net-next PATCH 0/3] qlge: Size RX buffers based on MTU. Date: Fri, 16 Oct 2009 19:22:10 -0700 Message-ID: <20091017022210.GA14919@linux-ox1b.qlogic.org> References: <1255724136-27264-1-git-send-email-ron.mercer@qlogic.com> <20091016.175142.52482970.davem@davemloft.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: "netdev@vger.kernel.org" To: David Miller Return-path: Received: from avexch1.qlogic.com ([198.70.193.115]:14295 "EHLO avexch1.qlogic.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751264AbZJQC2F (ORCPT ); Fri, 16 Oct 2009 22:28:05 -0400 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20091016.175142.52482970.davem@davemloft.net> Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Fri, Oct 16, 2009 at 05:51:42PM -0700, David Miller wrote: > From: Ron Mercer > Date: Fri, 16 Oct 2009 13:15:33 -0700 > > > These patches are interdependent. > > No, Ron, they are absolutely not. > > Apply the first patch, and that breaks the build because > you've removed LARGE_BUFFER_SIZE but it's still referenced > in qlge_main.c, and there are tons of other breakages too. > > Don't send me garbage like this and then claim it's a set > of independent patches. A trivial build test would have > shown otherwise, but you obviously didn't do that. > > This is completely rediculious: Hi Dave, Sorry for the confusion. I said they were 'interdependent' patches, meaning "depending on each other". I was trying to break this up to make it easier to review. Shall I send it as a single patch? Thanks, Ron