From: Christoph Hellwig [mailto:h...@infradead.org]
Sent: Sunday, June 18, 2017 4:15 PM
> On Sun, Jun 18, 2017 at 02:50:28PM +0300, Yuval Mintz wrote:
> > This series focuses on RDMA in general with emphasis on required
> > changes toward adding iWARP support. The vast majority of the changes
> >
> I can't really say I understand who would benefit from adding
> "while at it remove redundant inclusion of header file"
> to the commit log message [And even less from splitting this into its own
> patch].
Part of it is trust.
If you say you are just renaming, not making any change, reviewers
From: "Mintz, Yuval"
Date: Sun, 18 Jun 2017 17:54:49 +
> I can't really say I understand who would benefit from adding "while
> at it remove redundant inclusion of header file" to the commit log
> message [And even less from splitting this into its own patch].
Because it helps people underst
> I'm still not happy at all.
> You failed the address the specific thing I asked to be fixed.
> In patch #4, the rename, you just say in your commit message
> that you are "renaming".
> But in the qedr/main.c part of the change, you are _REMOVING_
> the include.
> And I said that can't be right
From: Yuval Mintz
Date: Sun, 18 Jun 2017 14:50:28 +0300
> Changes from previous versions
> --
> - V2: Add several inclusion into qede_rdma.h to have proper declarations
>of all variable types used in it
I'm still not happy at all.
You failed the address the spec
On Sun, Jun 18, 2017 at 02:50:28PM +0300, Yuval Mintz wrote:
> This series focuses on RDMA in general with emphasis on required changes
> toward adding iWARP support. The vast majority of the changes introduced
> are in qed/qede, with a couple of small changes to qedr
> [mentioned below].
Btw, can
This series focuses on RDMA in general with emphasis on required changes
toward adding iWARP support. The vast majority of the changes introduced
are in qed/qede, with a couple of small changes to qedr
[mentioned below].
The infrastructure changes:
- Patch #1 adds the ability to pass PBL memory e
