> If it gets sent to netdev, it's for a networking driver, and it says > "PATCH" rather than "RFC" or "please review" or "don't apply" you > cannot reasonably expect me to not look into applying the thing.
> And if you're saying that patches for this device should start not > going through me, and the tactic to accomplish that is to move the > bulk of the driver into some driver/shared area, that's really weird. Well, first of all, if a driver, networking or not, has an active maintainer, I would expect you to give that maintainer a chance to look at any not-totally-trivial patches affecting that driver. But in this case, mlx4_core (as opposed to mlx4_en from the same drivers/net/mlx4 directory) really is not a network driver -- it is a low-level multiplexer for access to hardware that really is more InfiniBand than ethernet (with a dash of Fibre Channel thrown in). And yes, I am saying that making it clearer that mlx4_core is not an network driver by moving the source to a more appropriate place does seem to make sense. > Anyways I didn't push the patch out to kernel.org yet so it's easy for > me to remove it. Thanks. - R. _______________________________________________ general mailing list general@lists.openfabrics.org http://lists.openfabrics.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/general To unsubscribe, please visit http://openib.org/mailman/listinfo/openib-general
