Messages in this thread | | | Date | Fri, 14 Dec 2007 15:05:31 -0800 | From | Divy Le Ray <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH 2/2] cxgb3 - Parity initialization for T3C adapters |
| |
Divy Le Ray wrote: > Jeff Garzik wrote: >> >> Divy Le Ray wrote: >> > Jeff Garzik wrote: >> >> Divy Le Ray wrote: >> >>> From: Divy Le Ray <divy@chelsio.com> >> >>> >> >>> Add parity initialization for T3C adapters. >> >>> >> >>> Signed-off-by: Divy Le Ray <divy@chelsio.com> >> >>> --- >> >>> >> >>> drivers/net/cxgb3/adapter.h | 1 >> >>> drivers/net/cxgb3/cxgb3_main.c | 82 ++++++++++++ >> >>> drivers/net/cxgb3/cxgb3_offload.c | 15 ++ >> >>> drivers/net/cxgb3/regs.h | 248 >> >>> +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ >> >>> drivers/net/cxgb3/sge.c | 24 +++- >> >>> drivers/net/cxgb3/t3_hw.c | 131 +++++++++++++++++--- >> >>> 6 files changed, 472 insertions(+), 29 deletions(-) >> >> >> >> dropped patches 2-3, did not apply >> >> >> >> >> > >> > Hi Jeff, >> > >> > I noticed that you applied the first one of this 3 patches series >> to the >> > #upstream-fixes branch. >> > These patches are intended to the #upstream (2.6.25) branch, as >> they are >> > built on top of the >> > last 10 patches committed - 9 from me, and the white space clean up >> > (thanks!). >> > May be this is the reason why they did not apply. >> >> Ah... you need to tell me these things. I looked for a kernel version >> in your messages but did not see one. >> > I had put it in the introduction mail, I should have added the kernel > version in the patch titles. > I'll do from now on. > >> >> Does the patch #1 need to be reverted for 2.6.24? >> > No, it can be applied to 2.6.24. > The 2 next patches seem to apply cleanly on #upstream when patch #1 is > popped out the patch stack. > Hi Jeff,
Did you get a chance to apply these patches #upstream ?
Cheers, Divy
| |