From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: David Miller Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 net-next 0/6] tls: Add generic NIC offload infrastructure Date: Wed, 20 Dec 2017 11:12:08 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <20171220.111208.1328340432834146497.davem@davemloft.net> References: <20171218171010.GB6823@nanopsycho> <20171219103010.GC1928@nanopsycho> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: jiri@resnulli.us, ilyal@mellanox.com, netdev@vger.kernel.org, davejwatson@fb.com, tom@herbertland.com, hannes@stressinduktion.org, aviadye@mellanox.com, liranl@mellanox.com To: borisp@mellanox.com Return-path: Received: from shards.monkeyblade.net ([184.105.139.130]:39706 "EHLO shards.monkeyblade.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751960AbdLTQMK (ORCPT ); Wed, 20 Dec 2017 11:12:10 -0500 In-Reply-To: Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: From: Boris Pismenny Date: Wed, 20 Dec 2017 08:28:03 +0000 > Dave, would you prefer to get the driver patches that use this infra > before the infra? The arguments you present are silly. In order to analyze any proposed API, the users of it must be presented for the reviewers to see as well. Logically, you must have tried to make use of the APIs to see how well they work and are usable for at least one such user, right? Therefore, the use case exists, and you must present it alongside the API proposal. Whether you provide the API addition patches and the user in the same patch series, or a separate one, doesn't really matter. What is important is that this is accessible to the reviewer at the same time.