Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1750894AbWEXOp7 (ORCPT ); Wed, 24 May 2006 10:45:59 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1751021AbWEXOp7 (ORCPT ); Wed, 24 May 2006 10:45:59 -0400 Received: from mx.pathscale.com ([64.160.42.68]:27297 "EHLO mx.pathscale.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750894AbWEXOp7 (ORCPT ); Wed, 24 May 2006 10:45:59 -0400 Subject: Re: [PATCH 1 of 10] ipath - fix spinlock recursion bug From: "Bryan O'Sullivan" To: Roland Dreier Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, openib-general@openib.org In-Reply-To: References: <1148419611.22550.11.camel@chalcedony.pathscale.com> Content-Type: text/plain Date: Wed, 24 May 2006 07:45:58 -0700 Message-Id: <1148481958.5652.27.camel@chalcedony.pathscale.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Evolution 2.6.1 (2.6.1-1.fc5.2) Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 677 Lines: 21 On Tue, 2006-05-23 at 14:31 -0700, Roland Dreier wrote: > It's probably OK as long as it's pure code motion. I'll recheck and make sure that it is before I send you anything. Thanks. > What I want to > avoid is the giant combo patch that does several different things, > because if someone later bisects a regression back to that patch, > we're kind of screwed... Yeah, I've been doing some educating lately about that :-)