On Thu, May 05, 2005 at 05:32:57PM -0700, Libor Michalek wrote: >On Thu, May 05, 2005 at 07:09:56PM +0200, Bernhard Fischer wrote: >> Hi, >> >> please consider attached. >> >> diffstat ./gen2.2257.cow-20050505-1902.diff >> linux-kernel/infiniband/ulp/sdp/sdp_actv.c | 27 +-- >> userspace/libmthca/src/mthca.c | 4 >> userspace/management/osm/include/opensm/osm_subnet.h | 79 +++++----- >> userspace/management/osm/include/vendor/osm_vendor_mtl_transaction_mgr.h | >> 43 ++--- >> userspace/management/osm/opensm/osm_sa_service_record.c | 8 - >> userspace/management/osm/opensm/osm_sm_state_mgr.c | 38 ++-- >> userspace/management/osm/opensm/osm_sw_info_rcv.c | 9 - >> userspace/management/osm/opensm/osm_trap_rcv.c | 62 +++---- >> 8 files changed, 134 insertions(+), 136 deletions(-) > >Bernhard, > > I have no problem with the content, but I think this would be easier if >you submitted a patch per module/program, so each maintainer could treat >this independently.
I tend to disagree. I'm an independant nitpicker. I'll try to separate those, but if a patch -- especially a relatively trivial one, which mostly touches obvious typos in the documentation -- comes in, i'd think that you in the sense of payed maintainers should be able to weight if you can apply them, regardless of who pays the 3 minutes to read through it. At any rate, i'll try to send them as separate patches per vendor in the future.. PS: cisco is core, mthca, sdp, and voltaire is osm, yes? Or would a split per individual be better? I really don't know. > >-Libor > > _______________________________________________ openib-general mailing list [email protected] http://openib.org/mailman/listinfo/openib-general To unsubscribe, please visit http://openib.org/mailman/listinfo/openib-general
