> -----Original Message----- > From: Jason Gunthorpe [mailto:[email protected]] > Sent: Thursday, April 16, 2015 11:43 AM > To: Michael Wang > Cc: Roland Dreier; Sean Hefty; Hal Rosenstock; [email protected]; > [email protected]; Tom Tucker; Steve Wise; > Hoang-Nam Nguyen; Christoph Raisch; Mike Marciniszyn; Eli Cohen; Faisal > Latif; Jack Morgenstein; Or Gerlitz; Haggai Eran; Ira Weiny; > Tom Talpey; Doug Ledford > Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 27/28] IB/Verbs: Clean up rdma_ib_or_iboe() > > On Tue, Apr 14, 2015 at 11:13:03AM +0200, Michael Wang wrote: > > > > I would be very happy to see a patch that adds cap_ib_smi to the > > > current tree and states 'This patch is tested to have no change on the > > > binary compilation results' > > > > There are too much reform there (per-dev to per-port), I guess the binary > > will changed more or less anyway... > > I think this patch series is huge, and everytime someone new looks at > it small functional errors seem to pop up.. > > Doing something to reduce the review surface would be really helpful > here. Not changing the same line twice, using tools too perform these > transforms and then assert the patch is a NOP because .. tools. Some > other idea? >
Don't try and change everything in one giant series. Just do some changes this cycle (keep it at < 8 or 10 patches), and do more later... -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [email protected] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
