Messages in this thread | | | From | "Chen, Mike Ximing" <> | Subject | RE: [RFC PATCH v12 01/17] dlb: add skeleton for DLB driver | Date | Tue, 21 Dec 2021 14:42:10 +0000 |
| |
> -----Original Message----- > From: Chen, Mike Ximing <mike.ximing.chen@intel.com> > Sent: Tuesday, December 21, 2021 9:26 AM > To: Greg KH <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org> > Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org; arnd@arndb.de; Williams, Dan J <dan.j.williams@intel.com>; pierre- > louis.bossart@linux.intel.com; netdev@vger.kernel.org; davem@davemloft.net; kuba@kernel.org > Subject: RE: [RFC PATCH v12 01/17] dlb: add skeleton for DLB driver > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Greg KH <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org> > > Sent: Tuesday, December 21, 2021 3:57 AM > > To: Chen, Mike Ximing <mike.ximing.chen@intel.com> > > Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org; arnd@arndb.de; Williams, Dan J > > <dan.j.williams@intel.com>; pierre- louis.bossart@linux.intel.com; > > netdev@vger.kernel.org; davem@davemloft.net; kuba@kernel.org > > Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v12 01/17] dlb: add skeleton for DLB driver > > > > On Tue, Dec 21, 2021 at 08:12:00AM +0100, Greg KH wrote: > > > On Tue, Dec 21, 2021 at 12:50:31AM -0600, Mike Ximing Chen wrote: > > > > +/* Copyright(C) 2016-2020 Intel Corporation. All rights reserved. > > > > +*/ > > > > > > So you did not touch this at all in 2021? And it had a > > > copyrightable changed added to it for every year, inclusive, from 2016-2020? > > > > > > Please run this past your lawyers on how to do this properly. > > > > Ah, this was a "throw it over the fence at the community to handle for > > me before I go on vacation" type of posting, based on your autoresponse email that happened when I > sent this. > > > > That too isn't the most kind thing, would you want to be the reviewer > > of this if it were sent to you? Please take some time and start doing > > patch reviews for the char/misc drivers on the mailing list before submitting any more new code. > > > > Also, this patch series goes agains the internal rules that I know > > your company has, why is that? Those rules are there for a good > > reason, and by ignoring them, it's going to make it much harder to get patches to be reviewed. > > > > I assume that you referred to the "Reviewed-by" rule from Intel. Since this is a RFC and we are seeking for > comments and guidance on our code structure, we thought it was appropriate to send out patch set out > with a full endorsement from our internal reviewers. The questions I posted in the cover letter (patch > 00/17) are from the discussions with our internal reviewers. . "we thought it was appropriate to send out the patch set out without* a full endorsement from our Internal reviewers" --- sorry for misspelling. > > I will take some days off as many people would do during this time of the year 😊, but will check mails > daily and response to questions/comments on the submission. > > Thanks for your help. > Mike
| |