netdev - Re: [PATCH net-next v6 0/9] [RFT] net: dpaa: Convert to phylink

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: <20221004095245.1e9918bf@kernel.org>
Date:   Tue, 4 Oct 2022 09:52:45 -0700
From:   Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>
To:     Sean Anderson <sean.anderson@...o.com>
Cc:     "David S . Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
        Madalin Bucur <madalin.bucur@....com>,
        Camelia Alexandra Groza <camelia.groza@....com>,
        netdev@...r.kernel.org, Russell King <linux@...linux.org.uk>,
        linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com>,
        Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>,
        "linuxppc-dev @ lists . ozlabs . org" <linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org>,
        Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@...nel.crashing.org>,
        Ioana Ciornei <ioana.ciornei@....com>,
        Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski+dt@...aro.org>,
        Li Yang <leoyang.li@....com>,
        Michael Ellerman <mpe@...erman.id.au>,
        Paul Mackerras <paulus@...ba.org>,
        Rob Herring <robh+dt@...nel.org>,
        Shawn Guo <shawnguo@...nel.org>, devicetree@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next v6 0/9] [RFT] net: dpaa: Convert to phylink

On Tue, 4 Oct 2022 11:28:19 -0400 Sean Anderson wrote:
> I noticed that this series was marked "RFC" in patchwork.

Because the cover letter has RTF in the subject, presumably.

> I consider this series ready to apply. I am requesting *testing*, in
> particular on 10gec/dtsec boards (P-series). Since no one seems to
> have tried that over the past 4 months that I've been working on this
> series, perhaps the best way for it to get tested is to apply it...

You know the situation the best as the author, you should make 
a clear call on the nature of the posting. It's either RFC/RFT 
or a ready-to-go-in posting.

Maybe in smaller subsystems you can post an RFC/RTF and then it 
gets applied after some time without a repost but we don't do that.
The normal processing time for a patch is 1-3 days while we like
to give people a week to test. So the patches would have to rot in 
the review queue for extra half a week. At our patch rate this is
unsustainable.