On Thu, May 28, 2015 at 08:53:20AM -0700, Scott Feldman wrote:
On Thu, May 28, 2015 at 2:18 AM, David Laight david.lai...@aculab.com wrote:
From: Simon Horman
Sent: 28 May 2015 04:23
The rocker (switch) of a rocker_port may be trivially obtained from
the latter it seems cleaner not to
Thu, May 28, 2015 at 05:23:17AM CEST, simon.hor...@netronome.com wrote:
The rocker (switch) of a rocker_port may be trivially obtained from
the latter it seems cleaner not to pass the former to a function when
the latter is being passed anyway.
I don't understand reason for this patch. I like it
On Thu, May 28, 2015 at 08:15:42AM +0200, Jiri Pirko wrote:
Thu, May 28, 2015 at 05:23:17AM CEST, simon.hor...@netronome.com wrote:
The rocker (switch) of a rocker_port may be trivially obtained from
the latter it seems cleaner not to pass the former to a function when
the latter is being
From: Simon Horman
Sent: 28 May 2015 04:23
The rocker (switch) of a rocker_port may be trivially obtained from
the latter it seems cleaner not to pass the former to a function when
the latter is being passed anyway.
If the arguments are passed in registers (they almost certainly are)
or the
On Thu, May 28, 2015 at 2:18 AM, David Laight david.lai...@aculab.com wrote:
From: Simon Horman
Sent: 28 May 2015 04:23
The rocker (switch) of a rocker_port may be trivially obtained from
the latter it seems cleaner not to pass the former to a function when
the latter is being passed anyway.
On Wed, May 27, 2015 at 8:23 PM, Simon Horman
simon.hor...@netronome.com wrote:
The rocker (switch) of a rocker_port may be trivially obtained from
the latter it seems cleaner not to pass the former to a function when
the latter is being passed anyway.
Signed-off-by: Simon Horman
