Re: Latest for-4.14

Doug Ledford
2017-07-27T18:32:48Z

[-- Attachment #1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1883 bytes --]

On 7/26/2017 9:03 AM, Leon Romanovsky wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 26, 2017 at 08:24:44AM -0400, Dennis Dalessandro wrote:
>> On 7/26/2017 1:37 AM, Leon Romanovsky wrote:
>>> Reply to: "Re: [PATCH for-next 7/9] IB/core: Allow QP state transition from reset to error"
>>>
>>> On Sun, Jul 23, 2017 at 09:14:02AM -0400, Doug Ledford wrote:
>>>> On 7/23/2017 9:04 AM, Leon Romanovsky wrote:
>>>
>>> <snip>
>>>
>>>>> BTW, when will you post for-4.14 branch so we will be able to base our
>>>>> submission queue for the -next?
>>>>
>>>> Tomorrow. I wanted to base it on 4.13-rc2 so it would get all of the
>>>> fixes that went in this week.
>>>
>>> Any news on the matter?
>>>
>>
>> Check Doug's GitHub, I see a 4.13-rc2 based "for-next" branch there.
>
> Are you referring to this branch?
> https://github.com/torvalds/linux/compare/master...dledford:k.o/for-next
>
> It doesn't have most of mlx5/mlx4/cavium/core/e.t.c features.

I created a for-next and then I've been making various other branches
through the week and sending them to github to be checked by 0day
testing. Once they pass 0day, I merge them into the for-next and push
one more time to make sure the combination of everything merged together
passes 0day, and once I get confirmation that the build is good, I'll
push it to k.o where it will be considered unrebaseable, and so any
fixes after that may require incremental patches, reverts, etc. The
slowdown this week has largely been the turnaround time on 0day testing.
That's been taking in excess of 10 hours from a push to test results
:-/. I pushed what I want to push to k.o this morning about 8am, not
sure when I'll get my 0day results back.

--
Doug Ledford <dledford-H+wXaHxf7aLQT0dZR+AlfA@public.gmane.org>
GPG Key ID: B826A3330E572FDD
Key fingerprint = AE6B 1BDA 122B 23B4 265B 1274 B826 A333 0E57 2FDD

[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 884 bytes --]