Also fix a typo in comment.
Signed-off-by: Wei Liu <wei.liu2@citrix.com>
---
drivers/net/xen-netfront.c | 4 ++--
1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
diff --git a/drivers/net/xen-netfront.c b/drivers/net/xen-netfront.c
index d9097a7..1bb2e20 100644
--- a/drivers/net/xen-netfront.c
+++ b/drivers/net/xen-netfront.c
@@ -735,7 +735,7 @@ static int xennet_get_responses(struct netfront_info *np,
/*
* This definitely indicates a bug, either in this driver or in
* the backend driver. In future this should flag the bad
- * situation to the system controller to reboot the backed.
+ * situation to the system controller to reboot the backend.
*/
if (ref == GRANT_INVALID_REF) {
if (net_ratelimit())
@@ -771,7 +771,7 @@ next:
if (unlikely(slots > max)) {
if (net_ratelimit())
- dev_warn(dev, "Too many frags\n");
+ dev_warn(dev, "Too many slots\n");
err = -E2BIG;
}
--
1.7.10.4
Sergei Shtylyov
2013-Apr-09 13:35 UTC
Re: [PATCH 4/7] xen-netfront: frags -> slots in log message
Hello. On 09-04-2013 15:07, Wei Liu wrote:> Also fix a typo in comment.> Signed-off-by: Wei Liu <wei.liu2@citrix.com> > --- > drivers/net/xen-netfront.c | 4 ++-- > 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)> diff --git a/drivers/net/xen-netfront.c b/drivers/net/xen-netfront.c > index d9097a7..1bb2e20 100644 > --- a/drivers/net/xen-netfront.c > +++ b/drivers/net/xen-netfront.c[...]> @@ -771,7 +771,7 @@ next: > > if (unlikely(slots > max)) { > if (net_ratelimit()) > - dev_warn(dev, "Too many frags\n"); > + dev_warn(dev, "Too many slots\n");Shouldn''t you have done this change as a part of patch #2? WBR, Sergei
On Tue, Apr 09, 2013 at 02:35:09PM +0100, Sergei Shtylyov wrote:> Hello. > > On 09-04-2013 15:07, Wei Liu wrote: > > > Also fix a typo in comment. > > > Signed-off-by: Wei Liu <wei.liu2@citrix.com> > > --- > > drivers/net/xen-netfront.c | 4 ++-- > > 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) > > > diff --git a/drivers/net/xen-netfront.c b/drivers/net/xen-netfront.c > > index d9097a7..1bb2e20 100644 > > --- a/drivers/net/xen-netfront.c > > +++ b/drivers/net/xen-netfront.c > [...] > > @@ -771,7 +771,7 @@ next: > > > > if (unlikely(slots > max)) { > > if (net_ratelimit()) > > - dev_warn(dev, "Too many frags\n"); > > + dev_warn(dev, "Too many slots\n"); > > Shouldn''t you have done this change as a part of patch #2?Because patch 2 has been applied to David Miller''s tree, this is an incremental patch on top of that. Wei.> > WBR, Sergei
Sergei Shtylyov
2013-Apr-12 14:40 UTC
Re: [PATCH 4/7] xen-netfront: frags -> slots in log message
Hello. On 09-04-2013 17:47, Wei Liu wrote:>>> Also fix a typo in comment.>>> Signed-off-by: Wei Liu <wei.liu2@citrix.com> >>> --- >>> drivers/net/xen-netfront.c | 4 ++-- >>> 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)>>> diff --git a/drivers/net/xen-netfront.c b/drivers/net/xen-netfront.c >>> index d9097a7..1bb2e20 100644 >>> --- a/drivers/net/xen-netfront.c >>> +++ b/drivers/net/xen-netfront.c >> [...] >>> @@ -771,7 +771,7 @@ next: >>> >>> if (unlikely(slots > max)) { >>> if (net_ratelimit()) >>> - dev_warn(dev, "Too many frags\n"); >>> + dev_warn(dev, "Too many slots\n"); >> >> Shouldn''t you have done this change as a part of patch #2?> Because patch 2 has been applied to David Miller''s tree, this is an > incremental patch on top of that.Why are you reposting already applied patch over and over again then?> Wei.WBR, Sergei
On Fri, Apr 12, 2013 at 03:40:06PM +0100, Sergei Shtylyov wrote:> Hello. > > On 09-04-2013 17:47, Wei Liu wrote: > > >>> Also fix a typo in comment. > > >>> Signed-off-by: Wei Liu <wei.liu2@citrix.com> > >>> --- > >>> drivers/net/xen-netfront.c | 4 ++-- > >>> 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) > > >>> diff --git a/drivers/net/xen-netfront.c b/drivers/net/xen-netfront.c > >>> index d9097a7..1bb2e20 100644 > >>> --- a/drivers/net/xen-netfront.c > >>> +++ b/drivers/net/xen-netfront.c > >> [...] > >>> @@ -771,7 +771,7 @@ next: > >>> > >>> if (unlikely(slots > max)) { > >>> if (net_ratelimit()) > >>> - dev_warn(dev, "Too many frags\n"); > >>> + dev_warn(dev, "Too many slots\n"); > >> > >> Shouldn''t you have done this change as a part of patch #2? > > > Because patch 2 has been applied to David Miller''s tree, this is an > > incremental patch on top of that. > > Why are you reposting already applied patch over and over again then? >Just for completeness. I stated that in email 0. Some people might be interested in applying the whole series to their local tree instead of cherry-picking from DaveM''s tree. Wei.> > Wei. > > WBR, Sergei