On Thu, Oct 26, 2023 at 03:11:28PM -0700, Justin Stitt wrote: > On Thu, Oct 26, 2023 at 3:09 PM Justin Stitt <justinst...@google.com> wrote: > > On Thu, Oct 26, 2023 at 3:02 PM Vladimir Oltean <olte...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > Maybe this is due to an incorrect rebase conflict resolution, but you > > > shouldn't have touched any of the ethtool force speed maps. > > > > Ah, I did have a conflict and resolved by simply moving the hunks > > out of each other's way. Trivial resolution. > > > > Should I undo this? I want my patch against next since it's targeting > > some stuff in-flight over there. BUT, I also want ethtool_puts() to be > > directly below ethtool_sprintf() in the source code. What to do? > > Oh, I just realized my auto formatter had a field day with that function. > I will rectify this in a new version after waiting 24hrs for comments to > trickle in as well.
Nothing other than ethtool_puts() should appear in the patch delta. pw-bot: cr _______________________________________________ Intel-wired-lan mailing list Intel-wired-lan@osuosl.org https://lists.osuosl.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-wired-lan
