Messages in this thread | | | Date | Wed, 29 Mar 2023 00:26:46 +0300 | Subject | Re: [PATCH net 4/7] net: dsa: mt7530: set both CPU port interfaces to PHY_INTERFACE_MODE_NA | From | Arınç ÜNAL <> |
| |
On 28/03/2023 14:20, Vladimir Oltean wrote: > On Tue, Mar 28, 2023 at 12:57:57AM +0300, Arınç ÜNAL wrote: >> I don't appreciate your consistent use of the word "abuse" on my patches. > > Consistent would mean that, when given the same kind of input, I respond > with the same kind of output. I'm thinking you'd want a reviewer to do that?
Of course.
> > Last time I said: "It's best not to abuse the net.git tree with non-bugfix patches." > https://patchwork.kernel.org/project/netdevbpf/patch/20230307220328.11186-1-arinc.unal@arinc9.com/ > > If anything, Jakub was/is slightly inconsistent by accepting those previous > non-bugfix patches to the net.git tree, and then agreeing with me. He probably > did that thinking it wasn't a hill worth dying on, which I can agree with. > But I'm afraid that this didn't help you realize that yes, maybe you really > are abusing the process by submitting exclusively non-bugfix commits to the > net tree. There's a fine balance between trying to be nice and trying not to > transmit the wrong message. > > It would be good if you could clarify your objection regarding my consistent > use of the word "abuse" on your patches. > > There is a document at Documentation/process/stable-kernel-rules.rst > which I remember having shared with you before, where there are some > indications as to what constitutes a legitimate candidate for "stable" > and what does not.
I forgot this existed, sorry about that. I had this thought left in my mind that "any changes that are not new features must go to the net tree", which clearly is not the case. I see what you mean now. None of my patches on the series satisfy all of the rules specified on the document.
I just think your response could've been less harsh considering I didn't intentionally do this. Anyway, it's all resolved now so let's not drag this further.
> >> I'm by no means a senior C programmer. I'm doing my best to correct the >> driver. >> >> Thank you for explaining the process of phylink with DSA, I will adjust my >> patches accordingly. >> >> I suggest you don't take my patches seriously for a while, until I know >> better. > > Whether you're a junior or a senior C programmer is entirely irrelevant > here. I have no choice but to take your patches seriously unless otherwise > specified, in the commit message, cover letter, or by marking them as > RFC/RFT (but even then, their intention must be very clearly specified, > so that I know what to comment on, or test). > > I don't think you really want what you're asking for, which is for > people to not take your patches seriously. I recommend forming a smaller > community of people which does preliminary patch review and discusses > issues around the hardware you're working on, prior to upstream submission. > That would, at least, be more productive.
Yes, of course. I'm actually planning something similar that involves OpenWrt, thanks.
Arınç
| |