On 04/07/2015 07:26 PM, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 07, 2015 at 02:30:22PM +0200, Michael Wang wrote:
>
>> - if (rdma_node_get_transport(device->node_type) != RDMA_TRANSPORT_IB)
>> - return;
>> -
>> if (device->node_type == RDMA_NODE_IB_SWITCH) {
>> start = 0;
>> end = 0;
>> @@ -3069,6 +3066,9 @@ static void ib_mad_init_device(struct ib_device
>> *device)
>> }
>>
>> for (i = start; i <= end; i++) {
>> + if (!cap_ib_mad(device, i))
>> + continue;
>> +
>
> I would prefer to see these changes in control flow as dedicated
> patches, at the top of your patch stack.
>
> For this kind of work a patch should be mechanical changes only, it is
> easier to review that way.
>
> Same comment applies throughout.
Make sense :-) I will re-organize the sequence and put them at last.
Regards,
Michael Wang
>
> Jason
>
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
