From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1752962AbdK1SjS (ORCPT ); Tue, 28 Nov 2017 13:39:18 -0500 Received: from mail-wm0-f41.google.com ([74.125.82.41]:33094 "EHLO mail-wm0-f41.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751781AbdK1SjQ (ORCPT ); Tue, 28 Nov 2017 13:39:16 -0500 X-Google-Smtp-Source: AGs4zMYHwcvYTiUiTcEzzA2spr+r/EHIn5FHtXAwnKSYEVveNnqoznZ7a3+eak1/SjSoYH1FHElQLQ== Date: Tue, 28 Nov 2017 11:39:10 -0700 From: Jason Gunthorpe To: Dennis Dalessandro Cc: Leon Romanovsky , "Wei Hu (Xavier)" , dledford@redhat.com, linux-rdma@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, xavier.huwei@tom.com, xavier_huwei@163.com, linuxarm@huawei.com Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/3] RDMA/hns: Bug fixes in hns RoCE driver Message-ID: <20171128183910.GA21325@ziepe.ca> References: <1511750484-102395-1-git-send-email-xavier.huwei@huawei.com> <20171127183637.GA13966@ziepe.ca> <20171128061517.GO29104@mtr-leonro.local> <6e9c4251-8e56-54e2-b186-d3d5b1b85204@intel.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <6e9c4251-8e56-54e2-b186-d3d5b1b85204@intel.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.24 (2015-08-30) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Tue, Nov 28, 2017 at 08:20:09AM -0500, Dennis Dalessandro wrote: > > > >If you treat all unmarked patches (without mentioning in cover letter or > >subject title) as targeted to for-next, it will make your life much more > >easier than trying to pick each patch alone. As an outcome, it will make > >the patch flow more predictable for us. > > Agree with Leon here. Unless otherwise stated, I would think for-next should > always be the default target. I try to tag my subject with for-next or > for-rc to make it clear. For Leon and Dennis I know they mark things, but other people seem to be sending bug fixes that are rc material without any firm indication one way or the other. I read the patches and that is my main question. Of course if they do not come in RC acceptable format then they wait in patchworks until -next is opened. > Now of course that being said here is an exception. I sent a series 2 weeks > ago that didn't make Doug's pull request for 4.15. I'd like to see some of > that stuff land in the rc if there are no objections. The driver changes at > least, the CM/SA can probably push off to for-next. > I could resubmit just the series, or you could just pick the 4 driver > patches from patchworks whatever is easiest. I marked them in patchworks, but can you review the commit messages and make sure you think Linus will see them as rc material too? Thanks, Jason