[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <61CC2BC414934749BD9F5BF3D5D940444FFA1D3B@ORSMSX106.amr.corp.intel.com>
Date: Mon, 10 Mar 2014 20:32:19 +0000
From: "Kirsher, Jeffrey T" <jeffrey.t.kirsher@...el.com>
To: David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>,
"sakiwit@...il.com" <sakiwit@...il.com>
CC: "Brown, Aaron F" <aaron.f.brown@...el.com>,
"netdev@...r.kernel.org" <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
"Skidmore, Donald C" <donald.c.skidmore@...el.com>
Subject: RE: [PATCH net-next] ixgbe: fix ixgbe_check_reset_blocked()
declaration
> -----Original Message-----
> From: David Miller [mailto:davem@...emloft.net]
> Sent: Monday, March 10, 2014 13:28
> To: sakiwit@...il.com
> Cc: Brown, Aaron F; netdev@...r.kernel.org; Skidmore, Donald C; Kirsher,
> Jeffrey T
> Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next] ixgbe: fix ixgbe_check_reset_blocked()
> declaration
>
> From: Jean Sacren <sakiwit@...il.com>
> Date: Sun, 9 Mar 2014 19:19:02 -0600
>
> > The commit c97506ab0e22 ("ixgbe: Add check for FW veto bit")
> > introduced the new function ixgbe_check_reset_blocked() with a minor
> > issue in declaration. Fix the declaration by changing the type
> > specifier to bool as the definition returns a boolean value.
> > Additionally all ixgbe_check_reset_blocked() callers are expected to
> > return a boolean value.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Jean Sacren <sakiwit@...il.com>
> > Cc: Don Skidmore <donald.c.skidmore@...el.com>
>
> I assume Jeff will pick this up into his Intel tree.
[Kirsher, Jeffrey T]
Yes, I will pick it up. Sorry for the delayed response.
--
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