netdev - Re: [patch net-next 00/34] net: sched: allow qdiscs to share filter block instances

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: <20171012.233153.709649098069912221.davem@davemloft.net>
Date:   Thu, 12 Oct 2017 23:31:53 -0700 (PDT)
From:   David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
To:     jiri@...nulli.us
Cc:     netdev@...r.kernel.org, jhs@...atatu.com, xiyou.wangcong@...il.com,
        mlxsw@...lanox.com, andrew@...n.ch,
        vivien.didelot@...oirfairelinux.com, f.fainelli@...il.com,
        michael.chan@...adcom.com, ganeshgr@...lsio.com,
        jeffrey.t.kirsher@...el.com, saeedm@...lanox.com,
        matanb@...lanox.com, leonro@...lanox.com, idosch@...lanox.com,
        jakub.kicinski@...ronome.com, ast@...nel.org, daniel@...earbox.net,
        simon.horman@...ronome.com, pieter.jansenvanvuuren@...ronome.com,
        john.hurley@...ronome.com, edumazet@...gle.com, dsahern@...il.com,
        alexander.h.duyck@...el.com, john.fastabend@...il.com,
        willemb@...gle.com
Subject: Re: [patch net-next 00/34] net: sched: allow qdiscs to share
 filter block instances

From: Jiri Pirko <jiri@...nulli.us>
Date: Fri, 13 Oct 2017 08:21:01 +0200

> Thu, Oct 12, 2017 at 07:21:48PM CEST, davem@...emloft.net wrote:
>>
>>Jiri I'm not looking at a 34 patch set, it's too large.
>>
>>Break this up into groups of a dozen or so patches each, no
>>more.  Submit them one at a time and wait for each series
>>to be fully reviewed and integrated before moving onto the
>>next one.
> 
> Yeah. As I stated in the beginning of the cover letter, I did not find a
> way to do it. I could split into 2 of 3 patchsets, problem is that I
> would introduce interfaces in first patchset that would be only used in
> patchset 2 or 3. I believe that is not ok. Do you think that I can do it
> like this this time?

Jiri, please try harder.

Thank you.