From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S932302AbcINUwG (ORCPT ); Wed, 14 Sep 2016 16:52:06 -0400 Received: from devils.ext.ti.com ([198.47.26.153]:41224 "EHLO devils.ext.ti.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1754539AbcINUwE (ORCPT ); Wed, 14 Sep 2016 16:52:04 -0400 Subject: Re: [PATCH 8/9] net: ethernet: ti: cpts: fix overflow check period To: Richard Cochran References: <20160914130231.3035-1-grygorii.strashko@ti.com> <20160914130231.3035-9-grygorii.strashko@ti.com> <20160914142503.GF28592@localhost.localdomain> <20160914200845.GB12195@netboy> <33f6f81b-ce41-4eba-c62d-93cdb06daa8f@ti.com> <20160914204307.GE12195@netboy> CC: "David S. Miller" , , Mugunthan V N , Sekhar Nori , , , WingMan Kwok From: Grygorii Strashko Message-ID: Date: Wed, 14 Sep 2016 23:48:37 +0300 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/45.2.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <20160914204307.GE12195@netboy> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252"; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On 09/14/2016 11:43 PM, Richard Cochran wrote: > On Wed, Sep 14, 2016 at 11:23:43PM +0300, Grygorii Strashko wrote: >> if yes then those changes are correct as from patch#7 point of >> view, as from patch#8 because they are separate standalone changes. >> In patch patch#7 it reasonable to ball out earlier, while in patch#8 >> it required to move forward a bit as I need to know maxsec. > > And what about the extra blank line? AFAICT, placing the test later > in patch #7 is correct logic and has the advantage of not distracting > reviews with pointless churn! > NP. I'll change it. -- regards, -grygorii