Re: [PATCH 0/3] RDMA/hns: Bug fixes in hns RoCE driver

[Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@ziepe.ca>]

On Tue, Nov 28, 2017 at 08:20:09AM -0500, Dennis Dalessandro wrote:
> >
> >If you treat all unmarked patches (without mentioning in cover letter or
> >subject title) as targeted to for-next, it will make your life much more
> >easier than trying to pick each patch alone. As an outcome, it will make
> >the patch flow more predictable for us.

> 
> Agree with Leon here. Unless otherwise stated, I would think for-next should
> always be the default target. I try to tag my subject with for-next or
> for-rc to make it clear.

For Leon and Dennis I know they mark things, but other people seem to
be sending bug fixes that are rc material without any firm indication
one way or the other. I read the patches and that is my main question.

Of course if they do not come in RC acceptable format then they wait
in patchworks until -next is opened.

> Now of course that being said here is an exception. I sent a series 2 weeks
> ago that didn't make Doug's pull request for 4.15. I'd like to see some of
> that stuff land in the rc if there are no objections. The driver changes at
> least, the CM/SA can probably push off to for-next.
 
> I could resubmit just the series, or you could just pick the 4 driver
> patches from patchworks whatever is easiest.

I marked them in patchworks, but can you review the commit messages
and make sure you think Linus will see them as rc material too?

Thanks,
Jason