Josh, Sorry for my ignorance that I did not copy you first. From now on I will make sure you are cc'ed . I will send you the copy of user manual which is available on external website.
Should I send new patch with what is tested with this change or is it enough to write in email ? Regards, Marri -----Original Message----- From: Josh Boyer [mailto:jwbo...@linux.vnet.ibm.com] Sent: Monday, December 07, 2009 4:53 PM To: Tirumala Reddy Marri Cc: b...@kernel.crashing.org; linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org Subject: Re: patch status On Mon, Dec 07, 2009 at 02:01:58PM -0800, Tirumala Reddy Marri wrote: >Hi Ben, > > Did you get the chance to review the patch I sent it on Dec-1 2009 > > > >http://lists.ozlabs.org/pipermail/linuxppc-dev/2009-December/078436.htm l Ben has to review lots of patches. Please be patient. Also, your patch is tracked via patchwork here: http://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/39865/ so you can see the state as it progresses. Further, it would have been helpful to CC the maintainer of the 4xx sub-arch (me) since it impacts that platform and you could have gotten some review more quickly. I didn't notice it until this afternoon. Lastly, your patch has lots of magical values in it. While I have no doubt they are correct, I can't find any documentation for 460SX on the AMCC website aside from some small product briefs. Perhaps I've overlooked the CPU manual, but since I don't have such a board or the manual for it, it would be nice to know what kind of testing has been done with this patch. A simple statement such as "tested on kernel <version> with a <network, raid, whatever> pci-e card successfully" would go a long way. This is not a rant or complaint about the code. Just a reminder that the community doesn't always move at the pace we would all like :). I'll try and look over the patch more carefully tomorrow. josh _______________________________________________ Linuxppc-dev mailing list Linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org https://lists.ozlabs.org/listinfo/linuxppc-dev
