From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: David Decotigny Subject: Re: [PATCH] forcedeth: new ethtool stat "tx_timeout" to account for tx_timeouts Date: Wed, 18 May 2011 14:20:21 -0700 Message-ID: References: <1305752945-14843-1-git-send-email-decot@google.com> <1305752945-14843-2-git-send-email-decot@google.com> <20110518.171416.1780927258138770742.davem@davemloft.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Cc: Joe Perches , szymon@janc.net.pl, netdev@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, kernel-net-upstream@google.com, snanda@google.com To: David Miller Return-path: Received: from smtp-out.google.com ([216.239.44.51]:44231 "EHLO smtp-out.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753151Ab1ERVUn (ORCPT ); Wed, 18 May 2011 17:20:43 -0400 Received: from kpbe15.cbf.corp.google.com (kpbe15.cbf.corp.google.com [172.25.105.79]) by smtp-out.google.com with ESMTP id p4ILKgXU028278 for ; Wed, 18 May 2011 14:20:43 -0700 Received: from qwb7 (qwb7.prod.google.com [10.241.193.71]) by kpbe15.cbf.corp.google.com with ESMTP id p4ILKfUg027430 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=RC4-SHA bits=128 verify=NOT) for ; Wed, 18 May 2011 14:20:41 -0700 Received: by qwb7 with SMTP id 7so1211944qwb.26 for ; Wed, 18 May 2011 14:20:41 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <20110518.171416.1780927258138770742.davem@davemloft.net> Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: Hi David, They should be independent and applicable in any order, except for the two 'PATCH x/2' which have to go together. FYI, here is the order in which I'm applying them: 1/ forcedeth: Improve stats counters 2/ forcedeth: new ethtool stat "tx_timeout" to account for tx_timeouts 3/ [PATCH 1/2] forcedeth: make module parameters readable in /sys/module 4/ [PATCH 2/2] forcedeth: allow to silence tx_timeout debug messages 5/ forcedeth: Acknowledge only interrupts that are being processed 6/ forcedeth: Add messages to indicate using MSI or MSI-X 7/ forcedeth: Fix a race during rmmod of forcedeth Sorry for that. Regards, -- David Decotigny On Wed, May 18, 2011 at 2:14 PM, David Miller wrote: > > When submitting multiple patches in a patch set, NUMBER THEM. > > Otherwise there is no unambiguous way to figure out what order > I should apply these patches. >