[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20210720124427.6b4e05a8@cakuba>
Date: Tue, 20 Jul 2021 12:44:27 +0200
From: Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>
To: Yajun Deng <yajun.deng@...ux.dev>
Cc: davem@...emloft.net, roopa@...dia.com, nikolay@...dia.com,
yoshfuji@...ux-ipv6.org, dsahern@...nel.org, courmisch@...il.com,
jhs@...atatu.com, xiyou.wangcong@...il.com, jiri@...nulli.us,
johannes@...solutions.net, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, bridge@...ts.linux-foundation.org,
linux-decnet-user@...ts.sourceforge.net,
linux-wireless@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/4] Remove rtnetlink_send() in rtnetlink
On Mon, 19 Jul 2021 20:21:54 +0800, Yajun Deng wrote:
> rtnetlink_send() is similar to rtnl_notify(), there is no need for two
> functions to do the same thing. we can remove rtnetlink_send() and
> modify rtnl_notify() to adapt more case.
>
> Patch1: remove rtnetlink_send() modify rtnl_notify() to adapt
> more case in rtnetlink.
> Path2,Patch3: Adjustment parameters in rtnl_notify().
> Path4: rtnetlink_send() already removed, use rtnl_notify() instead
> of rtnetlink_send().
You can't break compilation in between patches. Each step of the series
(each patch) must be self-contained, build, and work correctly.
Otherwise bisection becomes a nightmare.
Please also post series as a thread (patches in reply to the cover
letter), it seems that patchwork did not group the patches correctly
here.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists