On Tue, 2015-03-10 at 01:42 +0000, Hiroshi Shimamoto wrote:
> > On 03/08/2015 02:15 PM, Or Gerlitz wrote:
> > > On Mon, Feb 23, 2015 at 11:14 PM, Jeff Kirsher
> > > <jeffrey.t.kirsher@intel.com> wrote:
> > > [...]
> > >> We discussed this during NetConf last week, and Don is correct
> that a
> > >> custom sysfs interface is not the way we want to handle this.  We
> agreed
> > >> upon a generic interface so that any NIC is able to turn on or
> off VF
> > >> multicast promiscuous mode.
> > >
> > > Jeff, please make sure to either respond to my comments on the V2
> > > thread (or better) address them for the V3 post.
> > >
> > >
> > > http://marc.info/?l=linux-netdev&m=142441852518152&w=2
> > > http://marc.info/?l=linux-netdev&m=142441867218183&w=2
> > 
> > I agree with you that the patch descriptions should be cleaned up
> and
> > "beefed" up for that matter.
> > 
> > If/when I look to push his series of patches, I will make sure that
> your
> > concerns are addressed so that we can get a accurate changelog.
> 
> I see that the patchset should have better explanation in changelog.
> I will rewrite it and submit again.
> 
> Jeff, are you planning to drop the patchset from your tree?
> I just concerned which tree I should create patches against for.

Yes, I will drop the current patchset in my queue.  I am in the process
of updating my queue, go ahead and make your patches against the
following tree:

git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/jkirsher/next-queue.git
all-queue branch

If you give me an hour or so, I should have my tree updated with all the
patches in my queue currently.