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  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]
Date:   Sat, 16 Jul 2022 16:44:26 -0700
From:   Jakub Kicinski <>
To:     Vladimir Oltean <>
Cc:     "Russell King (Oracle)" <>,
        Andrew Lunn <>,
        Heiner Kallweit <>,
        Alexandre Belloni <>,
        Alvin Šipraga <>,
        Andy Shevchenko <>,
        Claudiu Manoil <>,
        Daniel Scally <>,
        "David S. Miller" <>,
        DENG Qingfang <>,
        Eric Dumazet <>,
        Florian Fainelli <>,
        George McCollister <>,
        Greg Kroah-Hartman <>,
        Hauke Mehrtens <>,
        Heikki Krogerus <>,
        Kurt Kanzenbach <>,
        Landen Chao <>,
        Linus Walleij <>,,,,
        Marek Behún <>,
        Matthias Brugger <>,, Paolo Abeni <>,
        "Rafael J. Wysocki" <>,
        Sakari Ailus <>,
        Sean Wang <>,,
        Vivien Didelot <>,
        Woojung Huh <>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next 0/6] net: dsa: always use phylink

On Sat, 16 Jul 2022 14:15:51 +0300 Vladimir Oltean wrote:
> > I'm afraid you are correct. Dave used to occasionally apply RFC patches
> > which kept reviewers on their toes a little bit (it kept me for sure).
> > These days patchwork automatically marks patches as RFC based on
> > the subject, tossing them out of "Action required" queue. So they are
> > extremely easy to ignore.
> > 
> > Perhaps an alternative way of posting would be to write "RFC only,
> > please don't apply" at the end of the cover letter. Maybe folks will 
> > at least get thru reading the cover letter then :S  
> Again, expressing complaints to me for responding late is misdirected
> frustration. The fact that I chose to leave my comments only when
> Russell gave up on waiting for feedback from Andrew doesn't mean I
> ignored his RFC patches, it just means I didn't want to add noise and
> ask for minor changes when it wasn't clear that this is the overall
> final direction that the series would follow. I still have preferences
> about the way in which this patch set gets accepted, and now seems like
> the proper moment to express them.

Oh, sorry, I wasn't commenting on how things played out for this
series. I was mostly reflecting on the fact that the automatic patch
state updates in patchwork have changed how RFC postings can be used 
on netdev, and it happened without any of us being asked our opinion.

Powered by blists - more mailing lists