From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mgamail.intel.com (mgamail.intel.com [198.175.65.10]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 6942E20E302 for ; Thu, 17 Oct 2024 23:38:27 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=198.175.65.10 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1729208310; cv=none; b=RPED47iPt3k7pkXGJ+gY6TvPiGXXzNuDvewaH8CzA/4vNPd+ZeFSzAznFgTd8SBGGAeFfdJYgxNRYlJS+x2UP1DK4cPigQiljPs525NAnK3MQeDV1+pTkZBrR09uSIROkDXwR5eWz382mnCTUEegIB+tTFHohN6Js4PZrnXH6dE= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1729208310; c=relaxed/simple; bh=RY9jgdBrDAzCz3+ixeKHMGe7x7hDmSHm/tRdSOZXLYw=; h=From:To:Cc:Subject:In-Reply-To:References:Date:Message-ID: MIME-Version:Content-Type; b=pbnpAXLlr0vySCmkyireSEbPzSX3wY0SlhvovO6VrRNCk59LXIQr2CpVGbbp19ebQKga68fGUoqva0RricQBFNUd/LB24oN1+cNUV3e93k6kqXc8bEwyoHZADG75P5Q1LOYQE7CQ710rzD3hkwA8+S/m5g1UVYje8TJiO+DgRtY= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=intel.com; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=intel.com; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=intel.com header.i=@intel.com header.b=DJYiwnev; arc=none smtp.client-ip=198.175.65.10 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=intel.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=intel.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=intel.com header.i=@intel.com header.b="DJYiwnev" DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=intel.com; i=@intel.com; q=dns/txt; s=Intel; t=1729208308; x=1760744308; h=from:to:cc:subject:in-reply-to:references:date: message-id:mime-version; bh=RY9jgdBrDAzCz3+ixeKHMGe7x7hDmSHm/tRdSOZXLYw=; b=DJYiwnev6bL9FFHqvN2VPggimTkw5yiEjNf+48Ed8FymCng1Mlndaq+H bC6P+i1hxlKkHr5TFsjuXuvs1POQ1/msojzt6HbluQqFyAOl5oBvMm6+h vLsHngsK0wEBn9Rws7oOwps0+dLvOgVowoLwGnh8jVngV/YUTW7tQg90z 2MLisw2Xe4eyYs1tcMvLzzcSZerJ2dIsurNUS0rIWAkUDOUAomKqzDYU4 CjRjaRPrA7p4RXpkQ8n0PXvEkeLxGex4K6Ekcsiz8A/fHbylGI4ijqSe/ 0wg34A1k8F2Wt0SXKss2brRJEsk1xydUZRav86k2tbjcxwt0SN2rBPKzZ Q==; X-CSE-ConnectionGUID: 8/txB3r7TkOfFuq13F8iBg== X-CSE-MsgGUID: S8c4n5viQoKvDaxZwhlmgA== X-IronPort-AV: E=McAfee;i="6700,10204,11222"; a="46185190" X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="6.11,199,1725346800"; d="scan'208";a="46185190" Received: from orviesa009.jf.intel.com ([10.64.159.149]) by orvoesa102.jf.intel.com with ESMTP/TLS/ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 17 Oct 2024 16:38:26 -0700 X-CSE-ConnectionGUID: JaNmBY9aRDaEvGeDVvoMSg== X-CSE-MsgGUID: ej+BuXEATr6Pkiwzs5zBTA== X-ExtLoop1: 1 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="6.11,212,1725346800"; d="scan'208";a="78613563" Received: from bjrankin-mobl3.amr.corp.intel.com (HELO vcostago-mobl3) ([10.124.222.240]) by orviesa009-auth.jf.intel.com with ESMTP/TLS/ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 17 Oct 2024 16:38:27 -0700 From: Vinicius Costa Gomes To: Dmitry Antipov , Jakub Kicinski , Paolo Abeni Cc: netdev@vger.kernel.org, lvc-project@linuxtesting.org Subject: Re: Pending taprio fixes In-Reply-To: <20241017112546.208758-1-dmantipov@yandex.ru> References: <20241017112546.208758-1-dmantipov@yandex.ru> Date: Thu, 17 Oct 2024 16:38:25 -0700 Message-ID: <87a5f2cnbi.fsf@intel.com> Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: netdev@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Hi, Dmitry Antipov writes: > Just one more friendly reminder. > Taking a look at: https://patchwork.kernel.org/project/netdevbpf/list/?series=900198 A couple of process related things jump up: 1. The subject prefix was not set in the "cover letter", so perhaps people/tools didn't see them as patches that should be considered, also the lack of "net" in the subject prefix, made patchwork to guess wrong, that this is targetting net-next; 2. You missed people from one of the patches CC list, running get_maintainer.pl on the patches helps here; 3. You didn't add my "Acked-by" to this version; Most probably, a mix of (1) and (2) was the reason that no one else reacted to v5. I should have been more clear about those. Cheers, -- Vinicius