From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Simon Horman Subject: Re: [PATCH 4/9] cxgb4vf: Add code to provision T4 PCI-E SR-IOV Virtual Functions with hardware resources Date: Tue, 29 Jun 2010 09:51:29 +0900 Message-ID: <20100629005129.GK10073@verge.net.au> References: <201006251511.46660.leedom@chelsio.com> <20100626133746.GB30133@verge.net.au> <201006280955.07352.leedom@chelsio.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: netdev@vger.kernel.org To: Casey Leedom Return-path: Received: from koto.vergenet.net ([210.128.90.7]:39865 "EHLO koto.vergenet.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752594Ab0F2Avc (ORCPT ); Mon, 28 Jun 2010 20:51:32 -0400 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <201006280955.07352.leedom@chelsio.com> Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Mon, Jun 28, 2010 at 09:55:07AM -0700, Casey Leedom wrote: > | From: Simon Horman > | Date: Saturday, June 26, 2010 06:37 am > | > | I wonder if it would be cleaner to move the guts of the last hunk > | into a function (e.g. adap_init_sriov()) and have that be a dummy > | function in the case that CONFIG_PCI_IOV in the first hunk is not set. > > I have no objection to this. I'd like to do minor tuning work like > that as a follow on rather than respin the patch. But, as I said in my > submission, I'm not familiar with this process so if making changes like > the above is required I'll definitely jump on it. I don't know what > issues are "critical show stoppers" and which ones are "nice to have" > once things are in place. I don't regard my suggestion as merge-critical.