From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1752092AbbIYFHT (ORCPT ); Fri, 25 Sep 2015 01:07:19 -0400 Received: from e06smtp05.uk.ibm.com ([195.75.94.101]:36626 "EHLO e06smtp05.uk.ibm.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750947AbbIYFHQ (ORCPT ); Fri, 25 Sep 2015 01:07:16 -0400 X-Helo: d06dlp03.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com X-MailFrom: ivan@ru.ibm.com X-RcptTo: netdev@vger.kernel.org Date: Fri, 25 Sep 2015 08:07:52 +0400 From: Ivan Mikhaylov To: "David Miller" Cc: , , , "Ben Hutchings" Subject: Re: [PATCH] net/ibm/emac: bump version numbers for correct work with ethtool Message-ID: <20150925080752.14a2fee6@fr-ThinkPad-W520> In-Reply-To: <20150923.110549.113067983983388057.davem@davemloft.net> References: <20150923144222.66de305c@fr-ThinkPad-W520> <20150923.110549.113067983983388057.davem@davemloft.net> X-Mailer: Claws Mail 3.8.0 (GTK+ 2.24.10; i686-pc-linux-gnu) Mime-Version: 1.0 X-MIMETrack: Itemize by SMTP Server on D06ML401/06/M/IBM(Release 9.0.1FP4HF67 | July 7, 2015) at 25/09/2015 08:07:11, Serialize by Router on D06ML401/06/M/IBM(Release 9.0.1FP4HF67 | July 7, 2015) at 25/09/2015 08:07:11, Serialize complete at 25/09/2015 08:07:11 X-TNEFEvaluated: 1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII X-TM-AS-MML: disable X-Content-Scanned: Fidelis XPS MAILER x-cbid: 15092505-0021-0000-0000-00000431698A Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Wed, 23 Sep 2015 11:05:49 -0700 (PDT) "David Miller" wrote: > From: Ivan Mikhaylov > Date: Wed, 23 Sep 2015 14:42:22 +0400 > > > Register dump out work preventing with > > old ethtool + new driver and new ethtool + old driver. > > First of all you didn't provide a proper Signoff. > > Second of all, there was so much discussion about whether this does > or does not break things for various combinations of old/new ethtool > and kernel. > > Therefore I want a real detailed commit message that explains why this > is all OK. After so much confusion and discussion, providing a patch > with absolutely no commit message is completely inappropriate. David, my apologies for signoff and description, I admit that is inappropriate. Ben proposed one, is it eligible? Need I resubmit patch with sign and detailed description?