On 04/16/2015 06:43 PM, Jason Gunthorpe wrote: > 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..
This is a big changing after all :-P As Doug suggested at very beginning, all these changing are necessary in order to eliminate the usage of old inferring method, then we will have a clean stage for next reform. And since it's big, I tried to classified them according to logical, to help us review more easily, I'm not sure but compress the series may increasing the difficulty of reviewing... > > 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? Actually the main reform work finished in 1#~15#, the rest are just introducing cap_XX which we only need to check the description and usage, thus I'd like to suggest we focus on reviewing 1#~15#, after all, the rest won't introducing Bug and we can edit them at any time :-P Frankly speaking I think it's a good thing that we locate errors at this moment, whenever someone find issues, that means the patch has been reviewed thoroughly, I think may be just few more version, this series will become stable ;-) Regards, Michael Wang > > Jason > -- 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/
