Re: [PATCH v7 00/23] IB/Verbs: IB Management Helpers

Doug Ledford
2015-04-30T07:00:16Z

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1815 bytes --]

On Thu, 2015-04-30 at 08:40 +0300, Or Gerlitz wrote:
> On 4/29/2015 7:28 PM, Doug Ledford wrote:
> > On Tue, 2015-04-28 at 17:10 +0200, Michael Wang wrote:
> >> >Since v6:
> >> > * Thanks to Ira, Devesh for the review and testing:-)
> >> > * Thanks for the comments from Sean, Tom, Jason, Doug, Devesh, Ira,
> >> > Liran:-) Please remind me if anything missed:-P
> >> > * Use query_protocol() and enum protocol type in 1#
> >> > * Use rdma_protocol_XX() in 2#
> >> > * Drop cma_set_legacy_transport()
> >> > * Reserve rdma_ib_or_iboe() and rdma_node_get_transport()
> >> > * Updated github repository to v7
> > I've taken your patchset and threw it into a for-4.2 branch in my repo.
> > This will get it 0day testing. I've also pulled it into my test cluster
> > and done minimal testing (bootup, finds devices, gets IP address via dhcp).
>
> Doug,
>
> As I wrote to Michael, this series carries way (way) over Cc: pointers
> in each it's commits. We have never had something like this since this
> stack was formed 10y ago and accepted into 2.6.12 --- and I didn't hear
> any good reason for why doing so (see the thread for "[PATCH v7 04/23]
> IB/Verbs: Reform IB-core cm") -- can you please provide your opinion on
> the matter?

When you are talking about a patch series using a single, global --cc
list for the git send-email command, I'm OK with that. The git
send-email command does not, however, stick the Cc: lines in the email
body itself. So there, it makes sense to trim the Cc: list to just the
necessary people.

So, short answer:

--cc list options: include all interested parties
git log messages: include relevant parties

--
Doug Ledford <dledford-H+wXaHxf7aLQT0dZR+AlfA@public.gmane.org>
GPG KeyID: 0E572FDD

[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 819 bytes --]