Hi Christoph,

-----Original Message-----
From: Christoph Hellwig [mailto:hch-jcswGhMUV9g@public.gmane.org]
Sent: Thursday, January 19, 2017 9:23 AM
To: Parav Pandit <parav-VPRAkNaXOzVWk0Htik3J/w@public.gmane.org>
Cc: hch-jcswGhMUV9g@public.gmane.org; sagi-NQWnxTmZq1alnMjI0IkVqw@public.gmane.org; linux-nvme-IAPFreCvJWM7uuMidbF8XUB+6BGkLq7r@public.gmane.org; linux-
rdma-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org; dledford-H+wXaHxf7aLQT0dZR+AlfA@public.gmane.org
Subject: Re: [PATCHv3] nvmet-rdma: Fix missing dma sync to nvme data
structures

quoted

+	ib_dma_sync_single_for_cpu(queue->dev->device,
+		cmd->cmd->sge[0].addr, cmd->cmd->sge[0].length,
+		DMA_FROM_DEVICE);
+	ib_dma_sync_single_for_cpu(queue->dev->device,
+			cmd->send_sge.addr, cmd->send_sge.length,
+			DMA_TO_DEVICE);

Why the different indentation here?  Both one or two tab indents look fine to
me in this context, but don't mix them.

I agree. I should have taken care of that.
Shall I resend patch with same indentation at all places or this can be taken care during commit?

Except for that this looks fine:

Reviewed-by: Christoph Hellwig <redacted>

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-rdma" in
the body of a message to majordomo-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html