Return-path: Received: from mail-qw0-f46.google.com ([209.85.216.46]:33009 "EHLO mail-qw0-f46.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752960Ab1DNH1w convert rfc822-to-8bit (ORCPT ); Thu, 14 Apr 2011 03:27:52 -0400 Received: by qwk3 with SMTP id 3so724514qwk.19 for ; Thu, 14 Apr 2011 00:27:51 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Reply-To: sedat.dilek@gmail.com In-Reply-To: <87fwpmknk4.fsf@purkki.adurom.net> References: <1302453139-11437-1-git-send-email-nbd@openwrt.org> <1302646041-3917-1-git-send-email-nbd@openwrt.org> <20110413125134.GA4832@tuxdriver.com> <87fwpmknk4.fsf@purkki.adurom.net> Date: Thu, 14 Apr 2011 09:27:51 +0200 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/7] ath5k: optimize tx descriptor setup From: Sedat Dilek To: Kalle Valo Cc: "John W. Linville" , Felix Fietkau , linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org, ath5k-devel@venema.h4ckr.net Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Sender: linux-wireless-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Wed, Apr 13, 2011 at 8:34 PM, Kalle Valo wrote: > "John W. Linville" writes: > >>> Looks like this v2 did not found its way to wireless-next [1]. >> >> That's what happens, when it is posted after I've already merged the v1. :-) >> >> I fixed things up and will commit the difference with the following message: >> >>     ath5k: improve comments for optimized tx descriptor setup >> >>     Comment the use of local variables to reduce the number of load/store >>     operations on uncached memory, in hopes of not losing this optimization >>     accidentally in the future. > > Thanks John. It was my fault as I was so slow to comment. But I blame > the sun for this, it's so amazing to see the sun again after six > months! ;) > > -- > Kalle Valo > Nice, the diff went into wireless-next-2.6 GIT [1] (even comments are welcome!). I would enjoy in the future, if you add by yourself a Reported-by as I saw from Linus Torvalds adding it to commits where maintainers simply forget it. Without reviewing/testing/reporting the code won't get better and more stable. I had tested all 10 or 11 recent ath5k patches, but lazy or simply trust the work by Felix. Not sure if I should add a Tested-by to all single patches of patchset or it's OK to reply to the 1st in series? Often I see a summary describing the patchset, something like "0/7: My super patchset". Replying only to 0/7 would make life easier... but I am *still* learning from git use-case-2-use-case. Ted (maintainer of ext4) told me even he is distinguising between Reported-and-tested-by and Reported-by/Tested-by. As a summary, don't forget to give credits to people. (P.S. I am currently here on a lame-ass IBM T40p with Pentium-M... I will contribute till it explodes someday). - Sedat - P.S. I am currently here on a lame-ass IBM T40p with Pentium-M... I will contribute till it explodes someday. [1] http://git.us.kernel.org/?p=linux/kernel/git/linville/wireless-next-2.6.git;a=commit;h=8962d87129ec0a820d17ac44cbf3f51010ad8db8