[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20210907071749.69225d50@kicinski-fedora-pc1c0hjn.dhcp.thefacebook.com>
Date: Tue, 7 Sep 2021 07:17:49 -0700
From: Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>
To: Rafał Miłecki <zajec5@...il.com>
Cc: Andrew Lunn <andrew@...n.ch>,
Florian Fainelli <f.fainelli@...il.com>,
patchwork-bot+netdevbpf@...nel.org, vivien.didelot@...il.com,
olteanv@...il.com, davem@...emloft.net, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
rafal@...ecki.pl
Subject: Re: [PATCH] net: dsa: b53: Fix IMP port setup on BCM5301x
On Tue, 7 Sep 2021 07:35:09 +0200 Rafał Miłecki wrote:
> Do you already have some special meaning for the "Under Review"? That
> sounds (compared to the "New") like someone actually planning to (n)ack
> a patch.
Under Review means patch has passed the basic triage and will be applied
to netdev trees unless instructed otherwise. Practically speaking it's
not expected to go via any sub-tree and the patchwork build bot
results look sane.
At least that's what it used to mean, with the advances in automatic
delegation it seems that Dave is using the state less these days, I
still follow the old protocol.
Sub-maintainers in netdev are historically asked not to change
patchwork state. The review delegation does not really work great for
netdev, since there can only be one delegate and we use it to split
user space tools vs netdev vs bpf. A more flexible scheme where
maintainer remains as a delegate but multiple reviewers can be attached
would be great, that's what I was alluding to earlier.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists