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
| ||
|
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.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists