From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: David Miller Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 0/9] net/macb: driver enhancement concerning GEM support, ring logic and cleanup Date: Fri, 26 Oct 2012 14:59:38 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <20121026.145938.2087989420370212890.davem@davemloft.net> References: <508AAB54.9010506@atmel.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: manabian@gmail.com, netdev@vger.kernel.org, havard@skinnemoen.net, bhutchings@solarflare.com, linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, plagnioj@jcrosoft.com, patrice.vilchez@atmel.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org To: nicolas.ferre@atmel.com Return-path: In-Reply-To: <508AAB54.9010506@atmel.com> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: netdev.vger.kernel.org From: Nicolas Ferre Date: Fri, 26 Oct 2012 17:25:08 +0200 > David, > > On 09/19/2012 01:55 PM, Nicolas Ferre : >> This is an enhancement work that began several years ago. I try to catchup with >> some performance improvement that has been implemented then by Havard. >> The ring index logic and the TX error path modification are the biggest changes >> but some cleanup/debugging have been added along the way. >> The GEM revision will benefit from the Gigabit support. >> >> The series has been tested on several Atmel AT91 SoC with the two MACB/GEM >> flavors. >> >> v2: - modify the tx error handling: now uses a workqueue >> - information provided by ethtool -i were not accurate: removed > > I am about to re-send this patch series. Should I rebase it on top of > Joachim's recent modifications? I mean, I plan to rebase them on top of > net-next, is it the proper thing to do? You should always base your patch on whatever tree you want your patches applied to. If you have a dependency on something not in that tree (for example, you need something in the 'net' tree) you have to tell me.