From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.8 required=3.0 tests=HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS, MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5968AC432C3 for ; Wed, 13 Nov 2019 22:25:17 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 642E7206EE for ; Wed, 13 Nov 2019 22:25:18 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1726480AbfKMWZR (ORCPT ); Wed, 13 Nov 2019 17:25:17 -0500 Received: from kvm5.telegraphics.com.au ([98.124.60.144]:33638 "EHLO kvm5.telegraphics.com.au" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1726251AbfKMWZQ (ORCPT ); Wed, 13 Nov 2019 17:25:16 -0500 Received: from localhost (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by kvm5.telegraphics.com.au (Postfix) with ESMTP id 32D392A6DA; Wed, 13 Nov 2019 17:25:14 -0500 (EST) Date: Thu, 14 Nov 2019 09:25:05 +1100 (AEDT) From: Finn Thain To: Kars de Jong cc: "James E.J. Bottomley" , "Martin K. Petersen" , Hannes Reinecke , linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org, linux-m68k@vger.kernel.org, schmitzmic@gmail.com Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] esp_scsi: Correct ordering of PCSCSI definition in esp_rev enum In-Reply-To: Message-ID: References: <20191029220503.7553-1-jongk@linux-m68k.org> <20191112185710.23988-1-jongk@linux-m68k.org> <20191112185710.23988-2-jongk@linux-m68k.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Sender: linux-m68k-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-m68k@vger.kernel.org On Wed, 13 Nov 2019, Kars de Jong wrote: > > > > FAS100A, FAST and FASHME are below both lines, which is a bit > > confusing. > > Hmm, you're right. But I don't really know how to solve that. But if you > think the initial comment is enough to trigger people to investigate the > algorithm, I can remove them. > Yes, please. The initial "NOTE!" that you added is sufficient, IMHO. --