[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20200622172929.0a7c29d9@kicinski-fedora-pc1c0hjn.dhcp.thefacebook.com>
Date: Mon, 22 Jun 2020 17:29:29 -0700
From: Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>
To: "Kirsher, Jeffrey T" <jeffrey.t.kirsher@...el.com>
Cc: "davem@...emloft.net" <davem@...emloft.net>,
"Kwapulinski, Piotr" <piotr.kwapulinski@...el.com>,
"netdev@...r.kernel.org" <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
"nhorman@...hat.com" <nhorman@...hat.com>,
"sassmann@...hat.com" <sassmann@...hat.com>,
"Loktionov, Aleksandr" <aleksandr.loktionov@...el.com>,
"Bowers, AndrewX" <andrewx.bowers@...el.com>
Subject: Re: [net-next 4/9] i40e: detect and log info about pre-recovery
mode
On Tue, 23 Jun 2020 00:18:08 +0000 Kirsher, Jeffrey T wrote:
> > There is no need to use the inline keyword in C sources. Compiler will inline
> > small static functions, anyway.
> >
> > Same thing in patch 8.
>
> I am prepping a v2, are these the only issues? Want to make sure
> before send out a v2 and thank you Jakub!
Since you asked :) - I couldn't really grasp what the 8th patch does.
Quite a bit of code gets moved around in a way that doesn't clearly
address any locking issues. Perhaps the commit message could be
improved (or even patch split into two - move code, change code)?
Powered by blists - more mailing lists