[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAJ3xEMi=xNKLarC9A7S75quQxmRGXVhOuesKF08gcE95oUYz8Q@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 13 Apr 2016 18:10:39 +0300
From: Or Gerlitz <gerlitz.or@...il.com>
To: Saeed Mahameed <saeedm@....mellanox.co.il>
Cc: Leon Romanovsky <leon@...n.nu>,
Saeed Mahameed <saeedm@...lanox.com>,
Matan Barak <matanb@...lanox.com>,
Linux Netdev List <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-rdma@...r.kernel.org" <linux-rdma@...r.kernel.org>,
"David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
Doug Ledford <dledford@...hat.com>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
Or Gerlitz <ogerlitz@...lanox.com>,
Leon Romanovsky <leonro@...lanox.com>,
Tal Alon <talal@...lanox.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH for-next 2/2] net/mlx5: Update mlx5_ifc hardware features
We talked here, and the three MLNX mlx5 maintainers prefer things to
be such they submit a patch
to both trees (rdma and net-next) that contains the changes they plan
to the FW IFC file for that
-next release. They agreed that only fields that will be actually in
use by the driver will be exposed
in the IFC. So... let it be and good luck to us, maybe with even zero
-next conflicts on mlx5 between
to two subsystems, happy upstreaming.
Or.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists