[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <cf24258a-fa26-047f-e347-31c2b36a641a@deltatee.com>
Date: Sat, 17 Jun 2017 10:11:33 -0600
From: Logan Gunthorpe <logang@...tatee.com>
To: 'Greg Kroah-Hartman' <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
Serge Semin <fancer.lancer@...il.com>
Cc: Allen Hubbe <Allen.Hubbe@...l.com>, linux-ntb@...glegroups.com,
linux-pci@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
'Jon Mason' <jdmason@...zu.us>,
'Dave Jiang' <dave.jiang@...el.com>,
'Bjorn Helgaas' <bhelgaas@...gle.com>,
'Kurt Schwemmer' <kurt.schwemmer@...rosemi.com>,
'Stephen Bates' <sbates@...thlin.com>,
Sergey.Semin@...latforms.ru
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 00/13] Switchtec NTB Support
On 16/06/17 11:09 PM, 'Greg Kroah-Hartman' wrote:
> Ah, but the patchset does seem to properly formatted. At least it's
> easy for me to review as-published, while a much smaller number of
> patches, making much larger individual patches, would be much much
> harder to review.
>
> But what do I know...
>
> Oh wait, I review more kernel patches than anyone else :)
Thanks Greg.
> Logan, given that you need to rebase these on the "new" ntb api (and why
> the hell is that tree on github? We can't take kernel git pulls from
> github), is it worth reviewing this patch series as-is, or do you want
> us to wait?
I think initial review at this time will still be useful. I don't expect
the patchset will change _that_ much.
Logan
Powered by blists - more mailing lists