netdev - Re: [PATCH net-next V1 00/12] Mellanox 100G ethernet SRIOV Upgrades

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-Id: <20160503.121845.38810507805302539.davem@davemloft.net>
Date:	Tue, 03 May 2016 12:18:45 -0400 (EDT)
From:	David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
To:	saeedm@...lanox.com
Cc:	netdev@...r.kernel.org, ogerlitz@...lanox.com, talal@...lanox.com,
	eranbe@...lanox.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next V1 00/12] Mellanox 100G ethernet SRIOV Upgrades

From: David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
Date: Tue, 03 May 2016 12:12:54 -0400 (EDT)

> 
> Please don't have two patch series pending for the same driver (mlx5) and
> the same tree (net-next).
> 
> This makes things extremely confusing (is patch set #2 dependent upon #1?
> what if I ask for changes to patch set #1?).
> 
> So always let the first patch series get fully resolved before sending
> the second series.
> 
> I'm tossing this series out.

Sorry, I just realized this is a new version of the previous series.

What confused me is "V1", because this isn't "V1".  Please don't number
things like that.

The first posting is implicitly "V1" and any subsequent version is
therefore "v2", "v3", and so on.

Thanks.