Re: [PATCH] sh_eth: merge sh_eth_free_dma_buffer() into sh_eth_ring_free()

Hello. On 11/5/2015 4:59 AM, David Miller wrote: While the ring allocation is done by a single function, sh_eth_ring_init(), the ring deallocation was split into two functions (almost always called one after the other) for no good reason. Merge sh_eth_free_dma_buffer() into sh_eth_ring_free()

Re: [PATCH] sh_eth: merge sh_eth_free_dma_buffer() into sh_eth_ring_free()

Hello. On 11/05/2015 07:13 PM, David Miller wrote: While the ring allocation is done by a single function, sh_eth_ring_init(), the ring deallocation was split into two functions (almost always called one after the other) for no good reason. Merge sh_eth_free_dma_buffer() into

Re: [PATCH] sh_eth: merge sh_eth_free_dma_buffer() into sh_eth_ring_free()

On 11/05/2015 08:19 PM, Sergei Shtylyov wrote: You guys really make an enormous amount of work and stress for me when you submit net-next patches when I _CLEARLY_ and _EXPLICITLY_ state that the tree is closed right now. Hmm, I hadn't seen your announcement, else I would have refrained

Re: [PATCH] sh_eth: merge sh_eth_free_dma_buffer() into sh_eth_ring_free()

From: Sergei Shtylyov Date: Thu, 5 Nov 2015 15:53:24 +0300 > Hello. > > On 11/5/2015 4:59 AM, David Miller wrote: > >>> While the ring allocation is done by a single function, >>> sh_eth_ring_init(), >>> the ring deallocation was split into two functions

Re: [PATCH] sh_eth: merge sh_eth_free_dma_buffer() into sh_eth_ring_free()

On 11/05/2015 09:29 PM, David Miller wrote: Hmm, I hadn't seen your announcement, else I would have refrained from sending. Will look for it now... I really don't know how to better get people's attention than this: http://marc.info/?l=linux-netdev=144652382428132=2 Umm,

Re: [PATCH] sh_eth: merge sh_eth_free_dma_buffer() into sh_eth_ring_free()

On Thu, Nov 05, 2015 at 01:29:15PM -0500, David Miller wrote: > From: Sergei Shtylyov > Date: Thu, 5 Nov 2015 20:19:17 +0300 > > >Hmm, I hadn't seen your announcement, else I would have refrained from > >sending. Will look for it now... > > I

Re: [PATCH] sh_eth: merge sh_eth_free_dma_buffer() into sh_eth_ring_free()

From: Sergei Shtylyov Date: Thu, 5 Nov 2015 20:19:17 +0300 >Hmm, I hadn't seen your announcement, else I would have refrained from >sending. Will look for it now... I really don't know how to better get people's attention than this:

Re: [PATCH] sh_eth: merge sh_eth_free_dma_buffer() into sh_eth_ring_free()

From: Sergei Shtylyov Date: Wed, 04 Nov 2015 00:55:13 +0300 > While the ring allocation is done by a single function, sh_eth_ring_init(), > the ring deallocation was split into two functions (almost always called > one after the other) for no good reason.

[PATCH] sh_eth: merge sh_eth_free_dma_buffer() into sh_eth_ring_free()

While the ring allocation is done by a single function, sh_eth_ring_init(), the ring deallocation was split into two functions (almost always called one after the other) for no good reason. Merge sh_eth_free_dma_buffer() into sh_eth_ring_free() which allows us to save space not only on the