From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1754759Ab1ERVUq (ORCPT ); Wed, 18 May 2011 17:20:46 -0400 Received: from smtp-out.google.com ([74.125.121.67]:55413 "EHLO smtp-out.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753936Ab1ERVUo (ORCPT ); Wed, 18 May 2011 17:20:44 -0400 DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=google.com; s=beta; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc:content-type; b=sO7CHbJMshh6Uq6leDTKECFVQrG5RWJ98Y59qQ3nTXuVEa6wQp0MA77ph5gsp9xft+ SE49tWwFqRCN5Dj03neQ== MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <20110518.171416.1780927258138770742.davem@davemloft.net> References: <1305752945-14843-1-git-send-email-decot@google.com> <1305752945-14843-2-git-send-email-decot@google.com> <20110518.171416.1780927258138770742.davem@davemloft.net> From: David Decotigny Date: Wed, 18 May 2011 14:20:21 -0700 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [PATCH] forcedeth: new ethtool stat "tx_timeout" to account for tx_timeouts To: David Miller Cc: Joe Perches , szymon@janc.net.pl, netdev@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, kernel-net-upstream@google.com, snanda@google.com Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 X-System-Of-Record: true Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Hi David, They should be independent and applicable in any order, except for the two 'PATCH x/2' which have to go together. FYI, here is the order in which I'm applying them: 1/ forcedeth: Improve stats counters 2/ forcedeth: new ethtool stat "tx_timeout" to account for tx_timeouts 3/ [PATCH 1/2] forcedeth: make module parameters readable in /sys/module 4/ [PATCH 2/2] forcedeth: allow to silence tx_timeout debug messages 5/ forcedeth: Acknowledge only interrupts that are being processed 6/ forcedeth: Add messages to indicate using MSI or MSI-X 7/ forcedeth: Fix a race during rmmod of forcedeth Sorry for that. Regards, -- David Decotigny On Wed, May 18, 2011 at 2:14 PM, David Miller wrote: > > When submitting multiple patches in a patch set, NUMBER THEM. > > Otherwise there is no unambiguous way to figure out what order > I should apply these patches. >