On Thu, 2006-12-14 at 11:15 -0600, Linas Vepstas wrote: > On Thu, Dec 14, 2006 at 11:22:43AM +1100, Michael Ellerman wrote: > > > spider_net_refill_rx_chain(card); > > > - spider_net_enable_rxchtails(card); > > > spider_net_enable_rxdmac(card); > > > return 0; > > > > Didn't you just add that line? > > Dagnabbit. The earlier pach was moving around existing code. > Or, more precisely, trying to maintain the general function > of the old code even while moving things around. > > Later on, when I started looking at what the danged function > actually did, and the context it was in, I realized that it > was a bad idea to call the thing. So then I removed it. :-/ > > How should I handle this proceedurally? Resend the patch sequence? > Let it slide?
If it was my code I'd redo the series, it's confusing and it's going to look confused in the git history IMHO. Currently the driver calls spider_net_enable_rxchtails() from spider_net_enable_card() and spider_net_handle_rxram_full(). Your patch 3/14 removes spider_net_handle_rxram_full() entirely, leaving spider_net_enable_card() as the only caller of spider_net_enable_rxchtails(). Patch 10/14 adds a call to spider_net_enable_rxchtails() in spider_net_alloc_rx_skbs(), and nothing else (except comment changes). Patch 12/14 removes the call to spider_net_enable_rxchtails() in spider_net_alloc_rx_skbs(), and nothing else. So as far as I can tell you should just drop 10/14 and 12/14. My worry is that amongst all that rearranging of code, it's not clear what the semantic change is. Admittedly I don't know the driver that well, but that's kind of the point - if you and Jim get moved onto a new project, someone needs to be able to pick up the driver and maintain it. cheers -- Michael Ellerman OzLabs, IBM Australia Development Lab wwweb: http://michael.ellerman.id.au phone: +61 2 6212 1183 (tie line 70 21183) We do not inherit the earth from our ancestors, we borrow it from our children. - S.M.A.R.T Person
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part