From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: James Smart Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 07/18] lpfc: NVME Initiator: Base modifications Part E Date: Tue, 7 Feb 2017 18:32:30 -0800 Message-ID: <52f4f81e-2353-4da2-7ce9-a7cd7796e1f7@gmail.com> References: <58990208.nZVFaqC7RkseErlq%jsmart2021@gmail.com> <5881e84b-c932-f812-7f41-a16152d12106@suse.de> Reply-To: jsmart2021@gmail.com Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Received: from mail-yb0-f195.google.com ([209.85.213.195]:36695 "EHLO mail-yb0-f195.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751094AbdBHCcd (ORCPT ); Tue, 7 Feb 2017 21:32:33 -0500 Received: by mail-yb0-f195.google.com with SMTP id o65so5627430ybo.3 for ; Tue, 07 Feb 2017 18:32:33 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <5881e84b-c932-f812-7f41-a16152d12106@suse.de> Sender: linux-scsi-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org To: Johannes Thumshirn , linux-nvme@lists.infradead.org, sagi@grimberg.me, linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org On 2/7/2017 1:03 AM, Johannes Thumshirn wrote: > > Yes but patch 03/18 'lpfc: NVME Initiator: Base modifications Part A' > still has calls to lpfc_sli_hbq_count(phba) (and in fact introduces this > change). > I realize I cut these in a silly way. In the v1 patches, I had a big patch that I then cut into 6 parts, by file. In the v2 patches, I tried to keep the patches as is, and address the comments in the respective patch the comment came from. Which resulted in 3/8 with an old reference, but patch 8/8 being the one that reverted this reverence. Sorry.. I'll recut and repost. -- james From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: jsmart2021@gmail.com (James Smart) Date: Tue, 7 Feb 2017 18:32:30 -0800 Subject: [PATCH v2 07/18] lpfc: NVME Initiator: Base modifications Part E In-Reply-To: <5881e84b-c932-f812-7f41-a16152d12106@suse.de> References: <58990208.nZVFaqC7RkseErlq%jsmart2021@gmail.com> <5881e84b-c932-f812-7f41-a16152d12106@suse.de> Message-ID: <52f4f81e-2353-4da2-7ce9-a7cd7796e1f7@gmail.com> On 2/7/2017 1:03 AM, Johannes Thumshirn wrote: > > Yes but patch 03/18 'lpfc: NVME Initiator: Base modifications Part A' > still has calls to lpfc_sli_hbq_count(phba) (and in fact introduces this > change). > I realize I cut these in a silly way. In the v1 patches, I had a big patch that I then cut into 6 parts, by file. In the v2 patches, I tried to keep the patches as is, and address the comments in the respective patch the comment came from. Which resulted in 3/8 with an old reference, but patch 8/8 being the one that reverted this reverence. Sorry.. I'll recut and repost. -- james