On 11/19/2016 2:46 PM, Or Gerlitz wrote: > On Fri, Nov 18, 2016 at 4:01 AM, Doug Ledford wrote: >> On 11/17/2016 5:24 PM, Or Gerlitz wrote: > > [...] > >> I agree with you. It doesn't fix your patch. The commit message can >> still be fixed up. > >>> Please do not send it to Linus and wait for them to respond. I >>> disagree that it fixes my commit b/c my commit was prior to when >>> route-able RoCE was introduced and on that time TOS had no relation. > >> I agree. A better fix tag would be the commit that added RoCEv2 support. > > But this is the smaller part of the problem. The bigger part is that I > have asked for clarifications on the patch and they didn't provide > anything. You asked for clarification on the commit message, I didn't hear any objections to the content of the patch itself. > So if you are picking patches where a reviewer comments are > ignored, what lesson are you teaching the submitter, that he can just > continue with this practice? why you letting this go that way? Because I can fix up the log message at any time prior to pulling it into my official -next branch. Since that's all you objected to, I can take the patch and wait for the final version of the comments. It's not a big deal Or. >>> does a tiny enhancement for a 10y old commit of Roland, why you think >>> we need it in 4.9-rc6 or 7?? > >> I don't, it's in the mlx-next branch which means I'll queue it up for >> the 4.10 merge window. I have no plan on sending that branch for 4.9-rc. > > Are you going to comment on that to the submitter? if not, they are > going to continue with this practice. Comment on what to the submitter? That the patch might not have been -rc material? I would have been OK with it around rc1 or rc2, just not this late in the rc cycle. In the end, I don't, nor can I, rely on submitters to determine what's RC material and what isn't, that's what I'm supposed to be doing. I will always apply my own judgment on that issue and submitters will learn over time when their patches get skipped on any sort of a regular basis. > How are we supposed to realize from patchworks + your github branches > that patches that were submitted for 4.9-rc are picked for 4.10? this > is very confusing and error prone too. I emailed the submitters off list about it and provided them a list of what patches went where and why. > Please comment also on the bunch of patches I pointed you where the > copy you have picked into your tree (pulled it from somewhere?) isn't > what was submitted. I'm sorry, but you'll have to refresh my memory on this issue. -- Doug Ledford GPG Key ID: 0E572FDD