[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1382472056.2160.3.camel@jtkirshe-mobl>
Date: Tue, 22 Oct 2013 13:00:56 -0700
From: Jeff Kirsher <jeffrey.t.kirsher@...el.com>
To: David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
Cc: netdev@...r.kernel.org, gospo@...hat.com, sassmann@...hat.com
Subject: Re: [net-next v2 00/14][pull request] Intel Wired LAN Driver Updates
On Tue, 2013-10-22 at 15:53 -0400, David Miller wrote:
> From: Jeff Kirsher <jeffrey.t.kirsher@...el.com>
> Date: Tue, 22 Oct 2013 07:22:23 -0700
>
> > This series contains updates to i40e only.
> >
> > Jesse provides 6 patches against i40e. First is a patch to reduce
> > CPU utilization by reducing read-flush to read in the hot path. Next
> > couple of patches resolve coverity issues reported by Hannes Frederic
> > Sowa <hannes@...essinduktion.org>. Then Jesse refactored i40e to cleanup
> > functions which used cpu_to_xxx(foo) which caused a lot of line wrapping.
> >
> > Mitch provides 2 i40e patches. First fixes a panic when tx_rings[0]
> > are not allocated, his second patch corrects a math error when
> > assigning MSI-X vectors to VFs. The vectors-per-vf value reported
> > by the hardware already conveniently reports one less than the actual
> > value.
> >
> > Shannon provides 5 patches against i40e. His first patch corrects a
> > number of little bugs in the error handling of irq setup, most of
> > which ended up panicing the kernel. Next he fixes the overactive
> > IRQ issue seen in testing and allows the use of the legacy interrupt.
> > Shannon then provides a cleanup of the arguments declared at the
> > beginning of each function. Then he provides a patch to make sure
> > that there are really rings and queues before trying to dump
> > information in them. Lastly he simplifies the code by using an
> > already existing variable.
> >
> > Catherine provides an i40e patch to bump the version.
>
> Pulled, thanks Jeff.
>
> Just a note for the future, and I decided not to push back this time when
> I saw it in this series. When you have a construct like:
>
> if (x)
> for( ... ) {
> }
>
> Put the top-level condition in braces too as it's much easier to read
> and audit:
>
> if (x) {
> for ( ... ) {
> }
> }
>
> Thanks.
I agree, I will add that to my list of checks for the future. Thanks
Dave.
Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (837 bytes)
Powered by blists - more mailing lists