Re: [PATCH for-next 00/14][PULL request] Mellanox mlx5 core driver updates 2016-10-25

2016-10-30 Thread David Miller
From: Saeed Mahameed Date: Sun, 30 Oct 2016 11:59:57 +0200 > On Fri, Oct 28, 2016 at 7:53 PM, David Miller wrote: >> >> I really disalike pull requests of this form. >> >> You add lots of datastructures and helper functions but no actual >> users

Re: [PATCH for-next 00/14][PULL request] Mellanox mlx5 core driver updates 2016-10-25

2016-10-30 Thread Saeed Mahameed
On Fri, Oct 28, 2016 at 7:53 PM, David Miller wrote: > > I really disalike pull requests of this form. > > You add lots of datastructures and helper functions but no actual > users of these facilities to the driver. > > Do this instead: > > 1) Add TSAR infrastructure

Re: [PATCH for-next 00/14][PULL request] Mellanox mlx5 core driver updates 2016-10-25

2016-10-28 Thread David Miller
I really disalike pull requests of this form. You add lots of datastructures and helper functions but no actual users of these facilities to the driver. Do this instead: 1) Add TSAR infrastructure 2) Add use of TSAR facilities to the driver That's one pull request. I don't

[PATCH for-next 00/14][PULL request] Mellanox mlx5 core driver updates 2016-10-25

2016-10-25 Thread Saeed Mahameed
Hi Dave and Doug, This series contains some low level and API updates for mlx5 core driver interface and mlx5_ifc.h, to be shared as base code for net-next and rdma mlx5 4.10 submissions. >From Artemy Kovalyov: - Update hardware struct mlx5_ifc_xrqc_bits - Ensure SRQ physical address