[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <SN1PR07MB22070DA963EE029137924C72F8CD0@SN1PR07MB2207.namprd07.prod.outlook.com>
Date: Mon, 26 Sep 2016 15:45:56 +0000
From: "Amrani, Ram" <Ram.Amrani@...ium.com>
To: "davem@...emloft.net" <davem@...emloft.net>,
"dledford@...hat.com" <dledford@...hat.com>
CC: "Elior, Ariel" <Ariel.Elior@...ium.com>,
"Kalderon, Michal" <Michal.Kalderon@...ium.com>,
"Mintz, Yuval" <Yuval.Mintz@...ium.com>,
"Borundia, Rajesh" <Rajesh.Borundia@...ium.com>,
"linux-rdma@...r.kernel.org" <linux-rdma@...r.kernel.org>,
"netdev@...r.kernel.org" <netdev@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: RE: [RFC v3 00/11] QLogic RDMA Driver (qedr) RFC
> The series adds on top of RFC v2:
> * fix licensing header to dual license
> * remove 'debug' module paramter and make use of pr_debug
> * relocation of qedr user API to include/rdma/uapi/
> * use the __u32/64 in uapi and include types.h
> * advance ABI version (since shifting to __u32/64 changed the ABI)
> * remove the check for all drivers that IB_ACCESS_MW_BIND isn't set
> in ib_get_dma_mr. It will be sent in a dedicated patch.
> * misc.: fixed typos, removed redundant includes
>
> For RFC v2 visit http://marc.info/?l=linux-rdma&m=147436779328618&w=2
I see that the following e-mails were sent with "PATCH" in the subject rather than "RFC v3".
This is a mistake. All e-mails are intended to be "RFC v3".
I don't think it should matter much for reading and reviewing purposes, but don't hesitate if
you would like me to re-send with fixed headers.
Ram
Powered by blists - more mailing lists