From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Michael Wang Subject: Re: [net-next 1/6] e1000e: Avoid wrong check on TX hang Date: Mon, 05 Dec 2011 16:18:46 +0800 Message-ID: <4EDC7E66.8070404@linux.vnet.ibm.com> References: <1322912671-6903-1-git-send-email-jeffrey.t.kirsher@intel.com> <1322912671-6903-2-git-send-email-jeffrey.t.kirsher@intel.com> <20111203.222659.277419094309941060.davem@davemloft.net> <1322983717.24828.8.camel@jtkirshe-mobl> <4EDC18D3.4060900@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <1323066318.24828.14.camel@jtkirshe-mobl> <4EDC6F76.2090504@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <1323072138.24828.32.camel@jtkirshe-mobl> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: Flavio Leitner , David Miller , "netdev@vger.kernel.org" , "gospo@redhat.com" , "sassmann@redhat.com" To: jeffrey.t.kirsher@intel.com Return-path: Received: from e28smtp04.in.ibm.com ([122.248.162.4]:57187 "EHLO e28smtp04.in.ibm.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752353Ab1LEIS5 (ORCPT ); Mon, 5 Dec 2011 03:18:57 -0500 Received: from /spool/local by e28smtp04.in.ibm.com with IBM ESMTP SMTP Gateway: Authorized Use Only! Violators will be prosecuted for from ; Mon, 5 Dec 2011 13:48:54 +0530 Received: from d28av01.in.ibm.com (d28av01.in.ibm.com [9.184.220.63]) by d28relay04.in.ibm.com (8.13.8/8.13.8/NCO v10.0) with ESMTP id pB58Inmt1949792 for ; Mon, 5 Dec 2011 13:48:50 +0530 Received: from d28av01.in.ibm.com (loopback [127.0.0.1]) by d28av01.in.ibm.com (8.14.4/8.13.1/NCO v10.0 AVout) with ESMTP id pB58Injm005639 for ; Mon, 5 Dec 2011 13:48:49 +0530 In-Reply-To: <1323072138.24828.32.camel@jtkirshe-mobl> Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On 12/05/2011 04:02 PM, Jeff Kirsher wrote: > On Sun, 2011-12-04 at 23:15 -0800, Michael Wang wrote: >> On 12/05/2011 02:25 PM, Jeff Kirsher wrote: >> >>> On Sun, 2011-12-04 at 17:05 -0800, Michael Wang wrote: >>>> On 12/04/2011 03:28 PM, Jeff Kirsher wrote: >>>> >>>>> On Sat, 2011-12-03 at 19:26 -0800, David Miller wrote: >>>>>> From: Jeff Kirsher >>>>>> Date: Sat, 3 Dec 2011 03:44:26 -0800 >>>>>> >>>>>>> + if ((!adapter->tx_hang_recheck) && >>>>>> >>>>>> Excessive parenthesis, please remove. >>>>>> >>>>>>> + adapter->tx_hang_recheck = 1; >>>>>> >>>>>> This variable is a bool, set it to true or false. >>>>>> >>>>>>> + adapter->tx_hang_recheck = 0; >>>>>> >>>>>> Likewise. >>>>>> >>>>>>> + adapter->tx_hang_recheck = 0; >>>>>> >>>>>> Likewise. >>>>> >>>>> Michael/Flavio - >>>>> >>>>> To expedite this patch, I can make the changes that Dave is requesting >>>>> and re-submit v2 of the patch, if that is ok with you. >>>>> >>>> >>>> Hi, Jeff >>>> >>>> That's ok for me, I think it's good if you can work with Dave and make >>>> out a final version for us, if you want my help, please mail me at any >>>> time, I'm glad to work with you. >>>> >>>> Flavio: >>>> What's your opinion? >>>> >>>> Thanks, >>>> Michael Wang >>> >>> I have the patch read to push, so I will go ahead an push v2 out >>> tonight. Since I am making changes to your patch, I will be removing >>> your signed-off-by (and Flavio's) and keep you as a CC: so that you can >>> verify the changes I have made to resolve the issues that Dave saw. >>> >> >> Hi, Jeff >> >> Is that means you have a better patch which different from ours, and you >> will use your patch to instead of ours? >> >> Because David is just ask for some small change, I think your time zone >> may be better to work with him, so I ask for your help. >> >> I was just confused that why our signed-off-by should be removed? >> >> Thanks, >> Michael Wang >> >>> Cheers, >>> Jeff > > It is your patch (your original work) but since I have made changes to > your patch, I (or anyone for that matter) should not assume that you as > the owner would signed off on the changes that I have made based on > feedback. It would not be right for me to send out a patch with your > signed-off-by which is different from what you originally submitted, > without your ok. Once I send out the v2 of the patch, please feel free > to add your signed-off-by OR acked-by to the patch. > Hi, Jeff That make sense, I'm sorry but because I'm new to the community, and I just want to make every thing clear so I can do better in the future. > While I personally do not have a problem keeping you as the owner and > your signed-off-by, I believe that takes in several assumptions which > only you as the owner should speak for. I am not trying to take > ownership for stats purposes, I care less about the number of patches I > create and own and would rather make sure that the original owners get > the credit due for the work they did. > I'm so sorry and I regret if I make you unhappy by some wrong word, please forgive me. > So with that, when I send out my next series of patches please feel free > to ACK or Sign-off on the changes made. I just wanted to make sure that > we get these changes in soon (with out delay). > > I can wait if you want to keep ownership of the patch, I just wanted to > ensure that we get your patch included as soon as possible based on the > problem it fixes. Please help us to make the patch perfect, and I'm very glad if I can have the opportunity to work with you. Thanks & Best regards Michael Wang