From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: David Miller Subject: Re: [PATCHv2] gro: Name the GRO result enumeration type Date: Thu, 29 Oct 2009 21:32:23 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <20091029.213223.94736944.davem@davemloft.net> References: <1256840061.2827.80.camel@achroite> <1256840775.2827.83.camel@achroite> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: netdev@vger.kernel.org, linux-net-drivers@solarflare.com To: bhutchings@solarflare.com Return-path: Received: from 74-93-104-97-Washington.hfc.comcastbusiness.net ([74.93.104.97]:56784 "EHLO sunset.davemloft.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750898AbZJ3Eb7 (ORCPT ); Fri, 30 Oct 2009 00:31:59 -0400 In-Reply-To: <1256840775.2827.83.camel@achroite> Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: From: Ben Hutchings Date: Thu, 29 Oct 2009 18:26:15 +0000 > This clarifies which return and parameter types are GRO result codes > and not RX result codes. > > Signed-off-by: Ben Hutchings > --- > This replaces the previous patch 1/4 and avoids introducing compiler > warnings. The original patches 2-4 will still apply on top of it. You can't do this Ben. Changing this patch makes the follow-on patches not apply cleanly. So if you respin stuff like this, you have to respin the follow-on patches too. I'll fix this up, but I am so irritated that I've wasted so much time tonight already on patch submissions that were not handled with any care at all. And it's all at my expense.