From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from smtp.kernel.org (aws-us-west-2-korg-mail-1.web.codeaurora.org [10.30.226.201]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 9C6F0126F37; Wed, 7 Feb 2024 20:18:46 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=10.30.226.201 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1707337126; cv=none; b=Cx/COZtc7Y6hH5hInCguPVyjAI9OYB3o4Z7pfO+6JOvu7PN5uofOwmsEDkD41b7XeAu3ZcPmJIOwa9cqI62Jr2+x7EVzhHIKy2qH2goUCwsi9a1hzRtfYb9YDaRpqsVrGsuvF0vTcEQsDwVxjQCQNPh2LBeQqBLz8yH1nTBE688= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1707337126; c=relaxed/simple; bh=3DBdSkr1+oN510ucK4APN7lecmvtDgNwN2r/J31Mba0=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:Message-ID:In-Reply-To:References: MIME-Version:Content-Type; b=B4NzmW+shwoHcNQHfbUfj/dVrWujbzCgpJNgFA3niE829LC/1xb0ilIPDbs3oDYUl+JvP1Q4TO2L2gkU4h7JOkgNmB8ZmJqiu6HjaCDuh15RNrff/NAERV+eQk9YmN/UA05zdHhw6B+jP7VwN5co5sHAqV6zkv9a5RHWtB+itRA= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=kernel.org header.i=@kernel.org header.b=NEFuw/ej; arc=none smtp.client-ip=10.30.226.201 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=kernel.org header.i=@kernel.org header.b="NEFuw/ej" Received: by smtp.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 0E61FC433C7; Wed, 7 Feb 2024 20:18:45 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=kernel.org; s=k20201202; t=1707337126; bh=3DBdSkr1+oN510ucK4APN7lecmvtDgNwN2r/J31Mba0=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:In-Reply-To:References:From; b=NEFuw/ejNPdZC/T+TmKCAo/eVBLcHKGs+gAzsnAOT1Z3Pk1+kHIFk5qOiqT+x7LvO ibzQMw15E9lNzOdHZIEI3EVuyp22O8Xfo21T64QhQazWamkzSRHbWdBgaJqbZsp6EL IbsZxi1ThJgF17+yE0hpL2iruWh2V3Sw0gsHiOPH+DzEo6MjJ04Fml8EqKOGrE6Pio 2c9Okoqr3741mPdoHwQJEVFO7x+lFuBqWjEWOqv8AUFxPCV7vQYQ8+Mk6y/shdNKAk ZvunoN+G00tuZe1DW516zTmTO5VRY3h5nkUQ8KkNA7C/svrr/+jSYU69TvIARo6ljn aXXMdSQxTjIrg== Date: Wed, 7 Feb 2024 12:18:44 -0800 From: Jakub Kicinski To: Joe Damato Cc: netdev@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, chuck.lever@oracle.com, jlayton@kernel.org, linux-api@vger.kernel.org, brauner@kernel.org, edumazet@google.com, davem@davemloft.net, alexander.duyck@gmail.com, sridhar.samudrala@intel.com, willemdebruijn.kernel@gmail.com, weiwan@google.com, David.Laight@ACULAB.COM, arnd@arndb.de, sdf@google.com, amritha.nambiar@intel.com, Jonathan Corbet , Alexander Viro , Jan Kara , Nathan Lynch , Michael Ellerman , Greg Kroah-Hartman , Namjae Jeon , Steve French , Thomas Zimmermann , Julien Panis , Andrew Waterman , Palmer Dabbelt , Albert Ou , "open list:DOCUMENTATION" , "open list:FILESYSTEMS (VFS and infrastructure)" Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next v6 4/4] eventpoll: Add epoll ioctl for epoll_params Message-ID: <20240207121844.6bf34083@kernel.org> In-Reply-To: <20240207191603.GB1313@fastly.com> References: <20240205210453.11301-1-jdamato@fastly.com> <20240205210453.11301-5-jdamato@fastly.com> <20240207185014.GA1221@fastly.com> <20240207110726.68c07188@kernel.org> <20240207191603.GB1313@fastly.com> Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: linux-api@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On Wed, 7 Feb 2024 11:16:03 -0800 Joe Damato wrote: > > > netdev maintainers: Jiri marked this with Reviewed-by, but was this review > > > what caused "Changes Requested" to be the status set for this patch set in > > > patchwork? > > > > > > If needed, I'll send a v7 with the changes Jiri suggested and add the > > > "Reviewed-by" since the changes are cosmetic, but I wanted to make sure > > > this was the reason. > > > > Yes, I think that's it. > > OK, thanks for letting me know. I wasn't sure if it was because of the > netdev/source_inline which marked 1/4 as "fail" because of the inlines > added. > > Does that need to be changed, as well? For background our preference is to avoid using static inline in C sources, unless the author compiled the code and actually confirmed the code doesn't get inlined correctly. But it's not a hard requirement, and technically the code is under fs/. In general the patchwork checks are a bit noisy, see here the top left graph of how many of the patches we merge are "all green": https://netdev.bots.linux.dev/checks.html Some of the checks are also largely outside of our control (checkpatch) so consider the patchwork checks as automation for maintainers. The maintainers should respond on the list if any of the failures are indeed legit.