[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20241024140422.3okn5lfqu72ncbxa@skbuf>
Date: Thu, 24 Oct 2024 17:04:22 +0300
From: Vladimir Oltean <vladimir.oltean@....com>
To: Kory Maincent <kory.maincent@...tlin.com>
Cc: Florian Fainelli <florian.fainelli@...adcom.com>,
Broadcom internal kernel review list <bcm-kernel-feedback-list@...adcom.com>,
Andrew Lunn <andrew@...n.ch>,
Heiner Kallweit <hkallweit1@...il.com>,
Russell King <linux@...linux.org.uk>,
"David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>,
Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>, Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com>,
Richard Cochran <richardcochran@...il.com>,
Radu Pirea <radu-nicolae.pirea@....nxp.com>,
Jay Vosburgh <j.vosburgh@...il.com>,
Andy Gospodarek <andy@...yhouse.net>,
Nicolas Ferre <nicolas.ferre@...rochip.com>,
Claudiu Beznea <claudiu.beznea@...on.dev>,
Willem de Bruijn <willemdebruijn.kernel@...il.com>,
Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>,
Horatiu Vultur <horatiu.vultur@...rochip.com>,
UNGLinuxDriver@...rochip.com, Simon Horman <horms@...nel.org>,
donald.hunter@...il.com, danieller@...dia.com,
ecree.xilinx@...il.com, Andrew Lunn <andrew+netdev@...n.ch>,
Thomas Petazzoni <thomas.petazzoni@...tlin.com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
linux-doc@...r.kernel.org,
Maxime Chevallier <maxime.chevallier@...tlin.com>,
Rahul Rameshbabu <rrameshbabu@...dia.com>,
Willem de Bruijn <willemb@...gle.com>,
Shannon Nelson <shannon.nelson@....com>,
Alexandra Winter <wintera@...ux.ibm.com>,
Jacob Keller <jacob.e.keller@...el.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next v18 00/10] net: Make timestamping selectable
On Wed, Oct 23, 2024 at 05:49:10PM +0200, Kory Maincent wrote:
> The series is based on the following netlink spec and documentation patches:
> https://lore.kernel.org/netdev/20241022151418.875424-1-kory.maincent@bootlin.com/
> https://lore.kernel.org/netdev/20241023141559.100973-1-kory.maincent@bootlin.com/
No point in posting a non-RFC patch revision if it conflicts with unmerged
dependencies. Since it doesn't apply cleanly, the NIPA CI won't run on it
and it won't be a candidate for merging due to that. But, if you post as
RFC PATCH v18 instead, you make it crystal clear for the reviewers involved
that you only request feedback.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists