From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Doug Ledford Subject: Re: [PULL REQUEST] Please pull rdma.git Date: Sat, 19 Nov 2016 18:11:22 -0500 Message-ID: <710f3e81-dd9c-8221-cf5e-7a96f4cad5b9@redhat.com> References: <58466423-c87e-3921-101e-bffab8989fd8@redhat.com> <20161117184950.GP4240@leon.nu> <582E089A.3040106@redhat.com> <20161117200203.GQ4240@leon.nu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha256; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="PO23CqrWosoQP3j5s3QF5qSFeiMrqxLXa" Return-path: In-Reply-To: Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org To: Or Gerlitz Cc: linux-rdma , Linux Kernel List-Id: linux-rdma@vger.kernel.org This is an OpenPGP/MIME signed message (RFC 4880 and 3156) --PO23CqrWosoQP3j5s3QF5qSFeiMrqxLXa Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="uOR2NNkICbw769JVXl3J91mAvn9DrvPMf"; protected-headers="v1" From: Doug Ledford To: Or Gerlitz Cc: linux-rdma , Linux Kernel Message-ID: <710f3e81-dd9c-8221-cf5e-7a96f4cad5b9@redhat.com> Subject: Re: [PULL REQUEST] Please pull rdma.git References: <58466423-c87e-3921-101e-bffab8989fd8@redhat.com> <20161117184950.GP4240@leon.nu> <582E089A.3040106@redhat.com> <20161117200203.GQ4240@leon.nu> In-Reply-To: --uOR2NNkICbw769JVXl3J91mAvn9DrvPMf Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On 11/19/2016 2:46 PM, Or Gerlitz wrote: > On Fri, Nov 18, 2016 at 4:01 AM, Doug Ledford wro= te: >> On 11/17/2016 5:24 PM, Or Gerlitz wrote: >=20 > [...] >=20 >> I agree with you. It doesn't fix your patch. The commit message can >> still be fixed up. >=20 >>> Please do not send it to Linus and wait for them to respond. I >>> disagree that it fixes my commit b/c my commit was prior to when >>> route-able RoCE was introduced and on that time TOS had no relation.= >=20 >> I agree. A better fix tag would be the commit that added RoCEv2 suppo= rt. >=20 > But this is the smaller part of the problem. The bigger part is that I > have asked for clarifications on the patch and they didn't provide > anything. You asked for clarification on the commit message, I didn't hear any objections to the content of the patch itself. > So if you are picking patches where a reviewer comments are > ignored, what lesson are you teaching the submitter, that he can just > continue with this practice? why you letting this go that way? Because I can fix up the log message at any time prior to pulling it into my official -next branch. Since that's all you objected to, I can take the patch and wait for the final version of the comments. It's not a big deal Or. >>> does a tiny enhancement for a 10y old commit of Roland, why you think= >>> we need it in 4.9-rc6 or 7?? >=20 >> I don't, it's in the mlx-next branch which means I'll queue it up for >> the 4.10 merge window. I have no plan on sending that branch for 4.9-= rc. >=20 > Are you going to comment on that to the submitter? if not, they are > going to continue with this practice. Comment on what to the submitter? That the patch might not have been -rc material? I would have been OK with it around rc1 or rc2, just not this late in the rc cycle. In the end, I don't, nor can I, rely on submitters to determine what's RC material and what isn't, that's what I'm supposed to be doing. I will always apply my own judgment on that issue and submitters will learn over time when their patches get skipped on any sort of a regular basis. > How are we supposed to realize from patchworks + your github branches > that patches that were submitted for 4.9-rc are picked for 4.10? this > is very confusing and error prone too. I emailed the submitters off list about it and provided them a list of what patches went where and why. > Please comment also on the bunch of patches I pointed you where the > copy you have picked into your tree (pulled it from somewhere?) isn't > what was submitted. I'm sorry, but you'll have to refresh my memory on this issue. --=20 Doug Ledford GPG Key ID: 0E572FDD --uOR2NNkICbw769JVXl3J91mAvn9DrvPMf-- --PO23CqrWosoQP3j5s3QF5qSFeiMrqxLXa Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" Content-Description: OpenPGP digital signature Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="signature.asc" -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2 Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://www.enigmail.net/ iQIcBAEBCAAGBQJYMNwaAAoJELgmozMOVy/dS7IP/30MxhnoxoxWuV2dMQMxxBKf cDGmMpdEzSefgJnKfFcFnQAzskz9JkiYyfI5nX+RUbWR3bueeW5sjkSCsM244mJR aH+nZP+qjAaWhITC0GoS0/ED8LugIh1AtYMwNSl4Cow7iE9qGcUCGnGFU4bFxZSA R31MoVzZqgUhjCQ2rFUiH1Z9IxVILaf8aBxmFgOZFbA/QJoe7WN8zJIx1T6jvOND FUKF5ZMsXVab2YM7tObIrHu3JiSz3j/ZKrRKKFkz8gDgvk9u5xBrQRF4n8vhIgnL V1CVsT2ONgtzN+KMZKwSYwdNSGD53SrXY5h14NaFFHMWTtCEukNamehipJkBYWGy zrl2+J0itxUfodJoMdSZJMhVYys+gFLPobp8qnht0LglwHPhKlVn/dunNbDAeBKv wWWhi5QlnIR4Y7nxTmnlP+zlU9BjZmxzpXlyiH1dT55jfGOkio5oRm1GyImyblob 4s8Kr3DF9EoqekFE74Cu5lwFNSLQYSfnMG1OqERD/o1L6mGXdPXxYziF4p1OaKYC WFXInm4nCc49dgKb5YffnGWtCHYOKRl/MH1f+fWVqzCfSt7BIY6Jnrxvr+pY8nzE YP6WSK09p1DLnEt6yl2IqFCO9gNFNp+7OI/FMVUfmsDvDeglR2GIj1Goy9E+Gs61 lvGg/nzUGy3WZ7yo5f3B =jql1 -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --PO23CqrWosoQP3j5s3QF5qSFeiMrqxLXa--