[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CALzJLG8BEivMg4h+=FcQ_7QFrZTRhRNsPgEH68WPKfmkguvNqA@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 17 Jun 2016 17:50:14 +0300
From: Saeed Mahameed <saeedm@....mellanox.co.il>
To: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>
Cc: Matan Barak <matanb@...lanox.com>,
Leon Romanovsky <leonro@...lanox.com>,
"David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
Saeed Mahameed <saeedm@...lanox.com>,
Or Gerlitz <ogerlitz@...lanox.com>,
Doug Ledford <dledford@...hat.com>,
Eli Cohen <eli@...lanox.com>, Majd Dibbiny <majd@...lanox.com>,
Linux Netdev List <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
linux-rdma@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] mlx5: only register devlink when ethernet is available
On Wed, Jun 15, 2016 at 11:50 PM, Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de> wrote:
> On Wednesday, June 15, 2016 7:04:54 PM CEST Saeed Mahameed wrote:
> Ok, I see. It would be nice if the process had a way to avoid build regressions
> in linux-next, in particular if you already have a fix by the time a patch
> that introduces a problem gets added.
>
The reason we added this tree is to get 0-day testing but currently it
makes some unwanted noise
so we will remove it until we figure it out.
>
> Can you check if the fix for the second problem correctly removes the
> unnecessary 64-bit division (as opposed to adding a call to div_s64()
> or do_div()), and if it removes all traces of 'struct timespec' again?
>
Yes, same thing, already fixed, will reply to that thread.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists