From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from smtp.kernel.org (aws-us-west-2-korg-mail-1.web.codeaurora.org [10.30.226.201]) (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 AC511355025 for ; Thu, 4 Dec 2025 17:43:42 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=10.30.226.201 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1764870222; cv=none; b=ILS2j9UrfeYhM22i1kn8b0JLDKANhCtINqHo/gckUT+V4mHnKXKFDOdm8Ruh9BVxilWDg0fCxPdhrQQbhiaA2Unx9k44HVg230R/q7SxE4bd2oZbl7Pkj9zz6wOqILlKdmIj1x1HVWFNMmG6f547yEZx7zvpif2h1ytqVvV9RQ4= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1764870222; c=relaxed/simple; bh=ANlhuk4F3lUdjCZFBfh8kiFAm52IlbP73ApvPkWPb+c=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:Message-ID:References:MIME-Version: Content-Type:Content-Disposition:In-Reply-To; b=e9vc+S28B96+3Rz70ZAa31W9VMPEN1my5LgJdUAkc6wQ26RZ53mnhTH1uXeTGeNHbWhpe4KHBlFWzs1EyHjGWuuLUjeOJZ4my6bWdvmfjLf2SZryEoeI0rN5/KZPIAtWsOSXWfUL8uns/QeHjsKNj/pQNhfI3USm/ic+CsawqNY= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=zx2c4.com header.i=@zx2c4.com header.b=ikrN5p44; arc=none smtp.client-ip=10.30.226.201 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=zx2c4.com header.i=@zx2c4.com header.b="ikrN5p44" Received: by smtp.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id EAE29C4CEFB; Thu, 4 Dec 2025 17:43:41 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.kernel.org; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=zx2c4.com header.i=@zx2c4.com header.b="ikrN5p44" DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=zx2c4.com; s=20210105; t=1764870220; h=from:from:reply-to:subject:subject:date:date:message-id:message-id: to:to:cc:cc:mime-version:mime-version:content-type:content-type: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references; bh=WNeKPv2bF7fxHXZ+Xnn5wy8NxZtaaS11huwudqwThfg=; b=ikrN5p44XW9f/c0dv95U688Q8LePaGbwzF9Nany7Y86YRJqAdpwk5nffmQJplonlN/YlQ8 XUeyNlSFt+kGEPsv0C40SOmcFQADWJ7lJqB5icD8yZUy1jG0YnZAAvzhBvJzV8z8A8rAW/ 4dLLqTMxwHs+0e7Z9l5ubtmTRgX0cbc= Received: by mail.zx2c4.com (ZX2C4 Mail Server) with ESMTPSA id 91fdf0fc (TLSv1.3:TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256:NO); Thu, 4 Dec 2025 17:43:39 +0000 (UTC) Date: Thu, 4 Dec 2025 12:43:31 -0500 From: "Jason A. Donenfeld" To: Jakub Kicinski Cc: netdev@vger.kernel.org, pabeni@redhat.com Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next 00/11] wireguard updates for 6.19 Message-ID: References: <20251201022849.418666-1-Jason@zx2c4.com> <20251201150729.521a927d@kernel.org> <20251201203713.58118d7e@kernel.org> Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: netdev@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20251201203713.58118d7e@kernel.org> Hi Jakub, On Mon, Dec 01, 2025 at 08:37:13PM -0800, Jakub Kicinski wrote: > FWIW we do still ask for patches to be posted to the list. But some > folks like to do _both_ that and include a branch/signed tag in the > cover letter to pull. You manage a zillion patches from a million people, and so your process of doing things takes precedent over whatever hairbrained ideas I have, obviously. But I thought I'd ask about this anyway (and if it's too annoying for you to even respond to, don't worry, and I'll continue doing things as normal, happily, without even a grumble). Here is how things work for submissions to Linus: 1. People post things to the list (myself included). They get discussed. Revisions get posted. Eventually things settle down and Reviewed-by lines come in. 2. I queue up the settled patches in one of my trees. 3. Eventually, I send a PULL to Linus for said tree. 4. Result: the patches originally posted on the list wind up in Linus' tree, and on Lore, there is one single thread that the patch came from. Here is how things work for submissions to netdev: 1. People post things to the list (myself included). They get discussed. Revisions get posted. Eventually things settle down and Reviewed-by lines come in. 2. I queue up the settled patches in one of my trees. 3. Eventually, I send the patches back out to you, and then you queue them up in net[-next]. 4. Result: the patches originally posted on the list wind up in your tree, and on Lore, there are now two threads for each patch -- the original where it was discussed, and this new process-generated one, and they're identical. The idea of sending a pull instead of step 3 would be to avoid the duplication. But it sounds like if I did a pull, you'd want pull+patches, continuing the duplication? What if, instead, the pull request just had the global diff of the whole pull? So it wouldn't be a total duplicate, but there'd still be some extra confirmation for you (which is I assume what the duplication is all about). Or... I just keep doing things in the normal way that they've been done for years, which clearly works and doesn't present a real issue for anybody. :) I don't want to change a process that clearly works for you. This always just struck me as a peculiarity, so I thought this was an occasion to mention it. Jason