From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1751978Ab3LXPeV (ORCPT ); Tue, 24 Dec 2013 10:34:21 -0500 Received: from mail-pb0-f42.google.com ([209.85.160.42]:38966 "EHLO mail-pb0-f42.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750987Ab3LXPeU (ORCPT ); Tue, 24 Dec 2013 10:34:20 -0500 Message-ID: <52B9A6C0.6040303@gmail.com> Date: Tue, 24 Dec 2013 23:22:40 +0800 From: Ding Tianhong User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.2.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Joe Perches CC: Ding Tianhong , "David S. Miller" , Netdev , "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" , e1000-devel@lists.sourceforge.net Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 01/20] net: slight optimization of addr compare for some modules References: <52B96F9B.4020806@huawei.com> <1387894944.2259.31.camel@joe-AO722> <52B99BB9.9030201@gmail.com> <1387897517.2259.41.camel@joe-AO722> In-Reply-To: <1387897517.2259.41.camel@joe-AO722> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org 于 2013/12/24 23:05, Joe Perches 写道: > On Tue, 2013-12-24 at 22:35 +0800, Ding Tianhong wrote: >> 于 2013/12/24 22:22, Joe Perches 写道: >>> On Tue, 2013-12-24 at 19:27 +0800, Ding Tianhong wrote: >>>> Use possibly more efficient ether_addr_equal_unaligned >>>> and ether_addr_equal to instead of memcmp. >>> >>> A negative of adding so many different drivers in a single >>> patch is that you miss sending patches to the named maintainers. >>> >>> Most of these below have separate individual maintainers. >> >> you mean that I should send below by separate patch? > > I think yes, > > You can send them to netdev, but cc'ing the named > maintainers is a polite thing to do. > > Sending individual patches can make it easier for > maintainers to review the bits that are specific > to their projects without having to wade through > other changes that aren't relevant to them. > OK, I will rebuild the 01/20 patch and make it to seperate patches follow your opinion. and the rest of the patches I think is fit and no need to modify, if you agree with me, I will send the rest 19 patch as the first step, and then seperate this patch as the second step, send them in net-next. Regards Ding >> It seemed that I >> misunderstood, I use the ./script/getmainter and found the only maintainer >> is David, and others are support, so maybe I was wrong, but it really a big >> patchset, could I send them by seperate patchset? I think it could be more >> clearly. > >>>From the MAINTAINERS file: > S: Status, one of the following: > Supported: Someone is actually paid to look after this. > Maintained: Someone actually looks after it. > Odd Fixes: It has a maintainer but they don't have time to do > much other than throw the odd patch in. See below.. > Orphan: No current maintainer [but maybe you could take the > role as you write your new code]. > Obsolete: Old code. Something tagged obsolete generally means > it has been replaced by a better system and you > should be using that. > > So "supported" is "higher/better" than "maintained". > OK > >