From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Ivan Mikhaylov Subject: Re: [PATCH] net/ibm/emac: bump version numbers for correct work with ethtool Date: Fri, 25 Sep 2015 08:07:52 +0400 Message-ID: <20150925080752.14a2fee6@fr-ThinkPad-W520> References: <20150923144222.66de305c@fr-ThinkPad-W520> <20150923.110549.113067983983388057.davem@davemloft.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: , , , "Ben Hutchings" To: "David Miller" Return-path: In-Reply-To: <20150923.110549.113067983983388057.davem@davemloft.net> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: netdev.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?