netdev - Re: [PATCH v2 iproute2-next 00/10] Add tc-mqprio and tc-taprio support for preemptible traffic classes

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: <28816788-3499-adca-b792-a5eafa2e2b14@kernel.org>
Date:   Tue, 25 Apr 2023 18:42:11 -0600
From:   David Ahern <dsahern@...nel.org>
To:     Vladimir Oltean <vladimir.oltean@....com>
Cc:     netdev@...r.kernel.org,
        Stephen Hemminger <stephen@...workplumber.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 iproute2-next 00/10] Add tc-mqprio and tc-taprio
 support for preemptible traffic classes

On 4/25/23 6:55 AM, Vladimir Oltean wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 24, 2023 at 07:47:31PM -0600, David Ahern wrote:
>> On 4/22/23 10:59 AM, Vladimir Oltean wrote:
>>> Unless there are changes I need to make to the contents of the patches,
>>> could you take these from the lists, or is that a no-no?
>>
>> iproute2 follows the netdev dev model with a main tree for bug fixes and
>> -next tree for features. In the future please separate out the patches
>> and send with proper targets. If a merge is needed you can state that in
>> the cover letter of the set for -next.
> 
> I know that the trees are split and it is no coincidence that my patches
> were sorted in the correct order. I've been working for 10 months on
> this small feature and I was impatient to get it over with, so I wanted
> to eliminate one round-trip time if possible (send to "iproute2", ask
> for merge, send to "iproute2-next"). I requested this honestly thinking
> that there would be no difference to the end result, only less pretentious
> in terms of the process. If there is any automation (I didn't see any in
> Patchwork at least) or any other reason that would justify the more
> pretentious process, then again, my excuses, I plead ignorance and I
> will follow it more strictly next time, but I'd also like to know it :)

Maybe the word choice here is a language issue, but it is not a
'pretentious' process, it is "the" process for submitting patches to
both networking trees and iproute2 trees. You would not send a mixed
patch set to the netdev maintainers, so don't do it for iproute2.