[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1494952561.3259.104.camel@redhat.com>
Date: Tue, 16 May 2017 12:36:01 -0400
From: Doug Ledford <dledford@...hat.com>
To: Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>, David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
Cc: Bart.VanAssche@...disk.com, torvalds@...ux-foundation.org,
netdev@...r.kernel.org, linux-rdma@...r.kernel.org,
stable@...r.kernel.org, ubraun@...ux.vnet.ibm.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH] net/smc: mark as BROKEN due to remote memory exposure
On Tue, 2017-05-16 at 18:30 +0200, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> On Tue, May 16, 2017 at 12:29:23PM -0400, David Miller wrote:
> >
> > I can't push back on people with silly coding style and small
> > semantic
> > issues forever. And I think I made a serious effort to keep the
> > patches getting posted over and over again to make sure they got
> > more
> > exposure.
>
> You can tell them to go to linux-rdma. I'm sending people to the
> right
> mailing list all the time.
Indeed. Every single time a patch comes into linux-rdma that touches
things in net/ or include/net, unless it is exceedingly minor, I check
the To:/Cc: lines on the email and if netdev@ isn't included, or in the
case of complex/tricky items, you aren't directly Cc:ed, then I
specifically tell them to include netdev@ and/or you. I've even had
things like a 12 patch series that buried three netdev@ appropriate
patches at different points in the series and told the submitter to
move all of the netdev@ related patches to the front and submit them to
netdev@ so they can be reviewed as a group before I would move on to
the others. It's just what you do. I've always considered that part
of my job.
--
Doug Ledford <dledford@...hat.com>
GPG KeyID: B826A3330E572FDD
Key fingerprint = AE6B 1BDA 122B 23B4 265B 1274 B826 A333 0E57 2FDD
Powered by blists - more mailing lists