[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <309B89C4C689E141A5FF6A0C5FB2118B970B125D@ORSMSX103.amr.corp.intel.com>
Date: Fri, 21 Jun 2019 01:45:21 +0000
From: "Brown, Aaron F" <aaron.f.brown@...el.com>
To: Artem Bityutskiy <dedekind1@...il.com>,
"David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>
CC: "Kirsher, Jeffrey T" <jeffrey.t.kirsher@...el.com>,
"Fujinaka, Todd" <todd.fujinaka@...el.com>,
"intel-wired-lan@...ts.osuosl.org" <intel-wired-lan@...ts.osuosl.org>,
"netdev@...r.kernel.org" <netdev@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] net: intel: igb: minor ethool regdump amendment
On Tue, 2019-06-18 at 14:55 +0300, Artem Bityutskiy wrote:
> From: Artem Bityutskiy <artem.bityutskiy@...ux.intel.com>
>
> This patch has no functional impact and it is just a preparation
> for the following patch. It removes an early return from the
> 'igb_get_regs()' function by moving the 82576-only registers
> dump into an "if" block. With this preparation, we can dump more
> non-82576 registers at the end of this function.
>
> Signed-off-by: Artem Bityutskiy <artem.bityutskiy@...ux.intel.com>
> ---
> drivers/net/ethernet/intel/igb/igb_ethtool.c | 70 ++++++++++----------
> 1 file changed, 35 insertions(+), 35 deletions(-)
>
Aside from teh missing "t" for ethtool in the subject that Andrew Lunn pointed out...
Tested-by: Aaron Brown <aaron.f.brown@...el.com>
Powered by blists - more mailing lists