[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <20090112.131632.119282940.davem@davemloft.net>
Date: Mon, 12 Jan 2009 13:16:32 -0800 (PST)
From: David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
To: dan.j.williams@...el.com
Cc: herbert@...dor.apana.org.au, torvalds@...ux-foundation.org,
akpm@...ux-foundation.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
hskinnemoen@...el.com, maciej.sosnowski@...el.com,
g.liakhovetski@....de, sfr@...b.auug.org.au,
netdev@...r.kernel.org, s.hauer@...gutronix.de
Subject: Re: [GIT PULL, resend] async_tx/dmaengine update for 2.6.29
From: "Dan Williams" <dan.j.williams@...el.com>
Date: Mon, 12 Jan 2009 10:45:02 -0700
> On Mon, Jan 12, 2009 at 5:15 AM, Herbert Xu <herbert@...dor.apana.org.au> wrote:
> > Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@...el.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> net/core/dev.c | 149 +------
> >> net/ipv4/tcp.c | 5 +-
> >> net/ipv4/tcp_input.c | 2 +-
> >> net/ipv4/tcp_ipv4.c | 2 +-
> >> net/ipv6/tcp_ipv6.c | 2 +-
> >
> > Wouldn't it be better for these changes to go through the net
> > tree?
> >
>
> It was awkward to separate the reformatting of the core api from its
> users. In this exceptional case these changes were limited to areas
> inside #ifdef CONFIG_DMA_ENGINE/CONFIG_NET_DMA.
>
> In general, Maciej and I send purely incremental patches through the
> net tree [1].
Yes, I think in this case it didn't make much sense to send
the changes via the net tree.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Powered by blists - more mailing lists