[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <20090325.203450.58187435.davem@davemloft.net>
Date: Wed, 25 Mar 2009 20:34:50 -0700 (PDT)
From: David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
To: alexander.duyck@...il.com
Cc: alexander.h.duyck@...el.com, shemminger@...tta.com,
jeffrey.t.kirsher@...el.com, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
gospo@...hat.com
Subject: Re: [net-next PATCH v3] igbvf: add new driver to support 82576
virtual functions
From: Alexander Duyck <alexander.duyck@...il.com>
Date: Wed, 25 Mar 2009 20:27:28 -0700
> On Wed, Mar 25, 2009 at 8:12 PM, David Miller <davem@...emloft.net> wrote:
> > From: Alexander Duyck <alexander.h.duyck@...el.com>
> > Date: Wed, 25 Mar 2009 17:54:55 -0700
> >
> >> Since the issue isn't the igbvf driver there is no reason for it to
> >> be held up.
> >
> > I disagree, I think both cases should be fixed.
> >
> > Just because we do something already never means that it's
> > ok to proliferate the mistake further.
>
> That isn't what I mean. The code he is referring to exists nowhere in
> the igbvf driver. I suppose I can edit the igbvf commit comments so
> that they don't mention the sysfs entry, but the code is in the igb
> driver.
I know it's in the igb driver, I fully understand that.
And I'm saying it was a mistake to merge that, it slipped past
me in my review of that change, and we need to move forward
and get rid of this thing.
--
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