Re: [PATCH 1/2] Documentation: usb: Update NCM configfs parameters

[Krishna Kurapati PSSNV]

On 10/9/2023 8:51 PM, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:

> > > > diff --git a/Documentation/usb/gadget-testing.rst b/Documentation/usb/gadget-testing.rst
> > > > index 29072c166d23..6e5d96668e8e 100644
> > > > --- a/Documentation/usb/gadget-testing.rst
> > > > +++ b/Documentation/usb/gadget-testing.rst
> > > > @@ -448,15 +448,17 @@ Function-specific configfs interface
> > > >    The function name to use when creating the function directory is "ncm".
> > > >    The NCM function provides these attributes in its function directory:
> > > > -	=============== ==================================================
> > > > -	ifname		network device interface name associated with this
> > > > -			function instance
> > > > -	qmult		queue length multiplier for high and super speed
> > > > -	host_addr	MAC address of host's end of this
> > > > -			Ethernet over USB link
> > > > -	dev_addr	MAC address of device's end of this
> > > > -			Ethernet over USB link
> > > > -	=============== ==================================================
> > > > +	================= ====================================================
> > > > +	ifname		  network device interface name associated with this
> > > > +			  function instance
> > > > +	qmult		  queue length multiplier for high and super speed
> > > > +	host_addr	  MAC address of host's end of this
> > > > +			  Ethernet over USB link
> > > > +	dev_addr	  MAC address of device's end of this
> > > > +			  Ethernet over USB link
> > > > +	max_segment_size  Segment size required for P2P connections. This
> > > > +			  will inturn set MTU to (max_segment_size - 14 bytes)
> > >
> > > "inturn"???
> > >
> > > > +	================= ====================================================
> > >
> > > What commit id does this fix?
> > This is not a bug fix. It is just an addition of a new property. Does it
> > need a fixes tag ?
>
> Where is the code for the new property?
>
> Ah, it's in patch 2/2, that wasn't obvious, sorry.  Why is this a
> separate patch at all, shouldn't be part of the commit that adds the new
> property to the system?

Sorry. I followed the practice of splitting patches like we usually do. 
Will club them up in a single patch in v2. Thanks for pointing this mistake.

Regards,
Krishna,