On Mon, Jan 4, 2010 at 2:34 AM, David Dillow <d...@thedillows.org> wrote: > > On Sat, 2010-01-02 at 13:19 +0100, Bart Van Assche wrote: > > This patch fixes this issue by adding support for SRP_CRED_REQ information > > units in the SRP initiator. Additionally, this patch makes the per-session > > variable req_lim visible through sysfs, which makes observing the initiator > > state easier. > > I agree that we should add support for SRP_CRED_REQ, but I'm not > thrilled with the mix of changes in the patch, as well as the general > aesthetics of the result. How about something like the following series > -- posted as a follow up to this message -- with proper credit for Bart? > I'll sign off on them once we're happy with a direction and Bart acks. > > Also, these are all compile tested only, so they need some testing. I > don't have anything that uses these messages, so some help would be > appreciated.
Is that regular kernel coding practice, to run away with the work someone else did and to claim authorship ? As far as I know this is considered as impolite. Bart. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-rdma" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
