From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand
        id S1753483AbcHUUP6 (ORCPT <rfc822;w@1wt.eu>);
        Sun, 21 Aug 2016 16:15:58 -0400
Received: from mout.web.de ([212.227.17.12]:60815 "EHLO mout.web.de"
        rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP
        id S1752017AbcHUUP4 (ORCPT <rfc822;linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>);
        Sun, 21 Aug 2016 16:15:56 -0400
Subject: Re: IB/core: Fine-tuning for ib_is_udata_cleared()
To: Joe Perches <joe@perches.com>
References: <566ABCD9.1060404@users.sourceforge.net>
 <f7bb3caf-81cd-fba9-afc8-5fac72b8a4b3@users.sourceforge.net>
 <1471802623.3746.1.camel@perches.com>
 <683187e0-2e6a-88c0-f87a-9c5f0489370a@users.sourceforge.net>
 <1471809188.3746.18.camel@perches.com>
Cc: linux-rdma@vger.kernel.org, Doug Ledford <dledford@redhat.com>,
        Hal Rosenstock <hal.rosenstock@gmail.com>,
        Sean Hefty <sean.hefty@intel.com>, LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        kernel-janitors@vger.kernel.org, Julia Lawall <julia.lawall@lip6.fr>
From: SF Markus Elfring <elfring@users.sourceforge.net>
Message-ID: <5e87f691-edb9-0a12-ff7a-59854c2ca2f8@users.sourceforge.net>
Date: Sun, 21 Aug 2016 22:15:32 +0200
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/45.2
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <1471809188.3746.18.camel@perches.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Provags-ID: V03:K0:UV68lzHELs1ImUDlZzLB8irpJaat9xhv5Pd3HQHBbxNSMjS/yvh
 eKVRTHBWz8smnLzKtC/kTRMIBTnYqKup1a52Uti6XoKidl4jnyvoOvI+LY+0Ur8GVtdlKIi
 5YsvczAKEW8MnlTxqwAmPLWf6XlY9BrbN2hOFpYJtLhP8SZYA7DEO4nfoYtdvS3BUZiyltZ
 xQt+gHwpCJcZQENNSqMyA==
X-UI-Out-Filterresults: notjunk:1;V01:K0:NSnis8PIOHo=:Wt3CnvQ+0en0f8alccukao
 Na76e+vGvfSZzAqPuwScQlJD6RHGEHpyovoooxcLetcf7HU5tLFUISppZklTFFREUMU5uYDTi
 +1r+1wLNr8Bab6NvcxqDfaqRQaylCEqdvOFlC4VNCFOMMN7xNBsIWA2I/JS2chLOdoCLQ1EGy
 X7qIJP5KP+PGx1ZBAe4rK5TMUQGA2kv/6OLEzeks0abBDKtu2szVs1+Z5+YWIH4LcHDnHarDo
 qVT1a3wFcx9ayf/7wWocnXprOWc05AcmQYWuGActcj1+T5riTBiADC1b/mCIbNWuOJDkdSg54
 F5nNyy7iaPqON+xRyrDHzu49vQ5PyyF0ck6bV5oRL5rauQ+OdXTeU6443ADBotK6ljUJEKxTm
 Ll+qnBtARcjF4DuQVJ4NFAFRGgeoNjnWnDAj6QW5ePHwLEnOwtYTJnCGQNC5W729jsV0GeRyz
 15FWOUvYTqDH0MPR/Z+uER/qDTMeyKgG40fU7R1F7TyReyCJnbQijijYk18ixqS19UmwMW7XQ
 TF6fpK7eVSfGoS5Zxi2Axbs1eGmSCeju73pq5c7Qi1YjUxGWu2+DRq6KyIa/QOWKEYuPxV4qa
 frJXzl2ACe0KRlbM8watVHYmif/HxnKlf+CAJPCwJ2zhDL3Wy4CN8+cvAMBPvA9b4CIWgiOSN
 r8moMFXYGzz3reDZOCbFvKJB6AXYQ8UslARyCEB96S2GeMdZ26AH92dAumEiJaYzM0zANCwVB
 YLU+iHoKHJN1KZV3czjvbfg3VeB7eQe1oN6izcz6a7ajd2GS0JjkXVq4TNvM+uKUeA+ZhBOMd
 TlfX5uW
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org

>>> Don't introduce a defect in patch 1 and correct
>>> that introduced defect in patch 2.
>> Which detail do you not like here?
> 
> See above.

This feedback is not clearer.

I find that the two update steps should work in principle,
shouldn't they?

I guess that we have got different preferences for the shown
patch granularity. Another update variant can follow a bit later
with the changes squashed together.

Regards,
Markus