On Wednesday 23 of April 2014 11:47:05 si...@mungewell.org wrote: > > On Wed, Apr 23, 2014 at 03:14:44PM +0000, madcatxs...@devoid-pointer.net > > > > wrote: > >> This is another case where even the old code was flawed, right? Should > >> I try to stuff the fixes into these patches or would a few extra > >> patches addressing these problems be an easier to review solution? I > >> can append such patches to the MLNX patchset. > > > > Changes addressing pre-existing problem should go into separate patches > > (preferably applicable first). > > As a by-stander who would like to see MLNX move forward, should it be > heldback by pre-existing problems in drivers that the MLNX dev(s) don't > have hardware to test against...? > > Simon.
Either approach is fine be me - I can rebase the MLNX patchset against the fixes and submit it again. I suppose that this is a good opportunity to fix a bunch old issues that would pass unnoticed otherwise. I would however appreciate as much comments regarding MLNX itself before I begin cleaning the ancient dust. Thanks for your input, Michal -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
