Re: [PATCH for-next 2/2] net/mlx5: Update mlx5_ifc hardware features

[Leon Romanovsky <leon@leon.nu>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1554 bytes --]

On Tue, Apr 12, 2016 at 12:37:34AM +0300, Or Gerlitz wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 12, 2016 at 12:24 AM, Saeed Mahameed
> <saeedm@dev.mellanox.co.il> wrote:
> > On Tue, Apr 12, 2016 at 12:17 AM, Or Gerlitz <gerlitz.or@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> >> feature --> features
> 
> > Correct, will fix.
> 
> >>> * Add vport to steering commands for SRIOV ACL support
> >>> * Add mlcr, pcmr and mcia registers for dump module EEPROM
> >>> * Add support for FCS, baeacon led and disable_link bits to hca caps
> >>> * Add CQE period mode bit in  CQ context for CQE based CQ
> >>>   moderation support
> >>> * Add umr SQ bit for fragmented memory registration
> >>> * Add needed bits and caps for Striding RQ support
> 
> >> AFAIK, all the above are features will go through net-next, what made
> >> you anticipate conflicts with linux-rdma?
> 
> > FCS bit is needed also for rdma, so we took the liberty of updating
> > all the needed HW structs, bits, caps, etc ..
> > at once for all mlx5 features planned for 4.7 regardless of rdma/net conflicts.
> 
> The cover letter states that this series deals with shared code.
> 
> I guess you might also could extend it a bit to deal also with code
> that you suspect could lead to conflicts, but I don't see why it
> evolved to that extent.

Or,
All these micro-optimizations on this shared file can potentially lead
to undesired merge conflicts. Subsystem maintainers and Linus don't need to
deal with these conflicts at all.

It won't help to anyone to split this commit to more than one patch.

[-- Attachment #2: Digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 819 bytes --]