From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Divy Le Ray Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] cxgb3 - Parity initialization for T3C adapters Date: Fri, 07 Dec 2007 16:14:56 -0800 Message-ID: <4759E200.3050607@chelsio.com> References: <20071205181527.22106.73134.stgit@speedy5> <4759A6EA.1050106@garzik.org> <4759CD92.2070604@chelsio.com> <4759D6AF.5050205@garzik.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: netdev@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Steve Wise , wenxiong@us.ibm.com To: Jeff Garzik Return-path: Received: from stargate.chelsio.com ([12.22.49.110]:26734 "EHLO stargate.chelsio.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752170AbXLHAPK (ORCPT ); Fri, 7 Dec 2007 19:15:10 -0500 In-Reply-To: <4759D6AF.5050205@garzik.org> Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: Jeff Garzik wrote: > > Divy Le Ray wrote: > > Jeff Garzik wrote: > >> Divy Le Ray wrote: > >>> From: Divy Le Ray > >>> > >>> Add parity initialization for T3C adapters. > >>> > >>> Signed-off-by: Divy Le Ray > >>> --- > >>> > >>> drivers/net/cxgb3/adapter.h | 1 > >>> drivers/net/cxgb3/cxgb3_main.c | 82 ++++++++++++ > >>> drivers/net/cxgb3/cxgb3_offload.c | 15 ++ > >>> drivers/net/cxgb3/regs.h | 248 > >>> +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > >>> drivers/net/cxgb3/sge.c | 24 +++- > >>> drivers/net/cxgb3/t3_hw.c | 131 +++++++++++++++++--- > >>> 6 files changed, 472 insertions(+), 29 deletions(-) > >> > >> dropped patches 2-3, did not apply > >> > >> > > > > Hi Jeff, > > > > I noticed that you applied the first one of this 3 patches series to the > > #upstream-fixes branch. > > These patches are intended to the #upstream (2.6.25) branch, as they are > > built on top of the > > last 10 patches committed - 9 from me, and the white space clean up > > (thanks!). > > May be this is the reason why they did not apply. > > Ah... you need to tell me these things. I looked for a kernel version > in your messages but did not see one. > I had put it in the introduction mail, I should have added the kernel version in the patch titles. I'll do from now on. > > Does the patch #1 need to be reverted for 2.6.24? > No, it can be applied to 2.6.24. The 2 next patches seem to apply cleanly on #upstream when patch #1 is popped out the patch stack. > > > On this topic, I have a question: how do I get to see all the netdev-2.6 > > branches ? > > > git fetch -f $NETDEV_URL upstream:upstream > > copies the latest upstream branch from netdev-2.6.git, and stores it as > your local upstream branch. > > You may do the same for #upstream-fixes too. > That made it. Thanks a lot! Cheers, Divy