From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Greg KH Subject: Re: netvsc NAPI patch process Date: Fri, 27 Jan 2017 19:04:19 +0100 Message-ID: <20170127180419.GB24114@kroah.com> References: <20170126100405.0eac2dea@xeon-e3> <20170126.130646.2180422281199593870.davem@davemloft.net> <20170127075406.GC31443@kroah.com> <20170127093953.5305de3c@xeon-e3> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: David Miller , kys@microsoft.com, netdev@vger.kernel.org To: Stephen Hemminger Return-path: Received: from out3-smtp.messagingengine.com ([66.111.4.27]:53523 "EHLO out3-smtp.messagingengine.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753227AbdA0SRR (ORCPT ); Fri, 27 Jan 2017 13:17:17 -0500 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20170127093953.5305de3c@xeon-e3> Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Fri, Jan 27, 2017 at 09:39:53AM -0800, Stephen Hemminger wrote: > On Fri, 27 Jan 2017 08:54:06 +0100 > Greg KH wrote: > > > On Thu, Jan 26, 2017 at 01:06:46PM -0500, David Miller wrote: > > > From: Stephen Hemminger > > > Date: Thu, 26 Jan 2017 10:04:05 -0800 > > > > > > > I have a working set of patches to enable NAPI in the netvsc driver. > > > > The problem is that it requires a set of patches to vmbus layer as well. > > > > Since vmbus patches have been going through char-misc-next tree rather > > > > than net-next, it is difficult to stage these. > > > > > > > > How about if I send the vmbus patches through normal driver-devel upstream > > > > and during the 4.10 merge window send the last 3 patches for NAPI for linux-net > > > > tree to get into 4.10? > > > > > > Another option is that the char-misc-next folks create a branch with just > > > the commits you need for NAPI, I pull that into net-next, and then you > > > can submit the NAPI changes to me. > > > > I can easily do that, or I have no problem with the vmbus changes going > > through the net-next tree, if they are sane (i.e. let me review them > > please...) Which ever is easier for the networking developers, their > > tree is much crazier than the tiny char-misc tree is :) > > > > thanks, > > > > greg k-h > > I just want the least pain and the least overhead process. Waiting two releases > and trying to deal with merge conflicts is a pain. Also it makes life harder > with distro backports etc. I totally agree. Post the patches and let's see what they look like and then we can argue who's tree they should go through :)