> 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. -- 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/
