From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Jason Gunthorpe Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH rdma-next 02/14] RDMA/core: Enforce requirement to hold lists_rwsem semaphore Date: Thu, 21 Dec 2017 13:23:36 -0700 Message-ID: <20171221202336.GG20015@ziepe.ca> References: <20171221181748.17126-1-leon@kernel.org> <20171221181748.17126-3-leon@kernel.org> <20171221191200.GE20015@ziepe.ca> <20171221195134.GM2942@mtr-leonro.local> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20171221195134.GM2942-U/DQcQFIOTAAJjI8aNfphQ@public.gmane.org> Sender: linux-rdma-owner-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org To: Leon Romanovsky Cc: Doug Ledford , linux-rdma-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org, Mark Bloch , Steve Wise , Dennis Dalessandro List-Id: linux-rdma@vger.kernel.org On Thu, Dec 21, 2017 at 09:51:34PM +0200, Leon Romanovsky wrote: > This for-rc/for-next thing is new for me. In RDMA, we didn't bother ourselves too > much and sent everything to for-next. Okay.. But I think it helps distros if we classify our work a little more finely, eg anything that merged through the for-rc should be inspected more closely for distro or stable backporting. The dependencies are easy enough to deal with if you mark them in the cover letter. And I prefer a workflow where the series are smaller, focused on a topic and more often than in a giant patch bomb once per release. At least so far anyhow.. Though, I know Doug works quite differently. Jason -- 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