On Fri, Aug 25, 2017 at 3:28 PM, Stefano Brivio <sbri...@redhat.com> wrote: > On Fri, 25 Aug 2017 15:10:08 -0700 > Alexander Duyck <alexander.du...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> On Fri, Aug 25, 2017 at 1:52 PM, Stefano Brivio <sbri...@redhat.com> wrote: >> >> [...] >> >> > Once patches reach Intel's patchwork, will they need to wait for some >> > kind of periodically scheduled pull request process? >> >> Once in the patchwork they go through testing and after they have >> passed testing Jeff will try to push them to Dave. > > Ok, the whole part above is clear, thanks a lot for clarifying. > >> > I don't know if a process is actually defined at this level of detail, >> > but still I feel it's wrong that an obvious fix for a potential crash is >> > waiting in some sort of limbo for 10 days now. Sure, worse things >> > happen in the world, but I can't understand what this patch is waiting >> > for. >> >> Well in the case of your patch it was rejected as it didn't apply to >> Jeff's tree > > It actually did when I posted it. > >> and conflicted with Jacob Keller's patch. He submitted a v2 on Tuesday >> which has only been applied for a few days. Once it receives a >> "Tested-by:" > > Which, if I understood correctly, only comes after some internal testing > process, right? > >> it will be ready for submission assuming it passes testing. > > Now that patch is again in a v2 pull request for net-next, without the > changes I suggested for the commit message. And the same exact code > changes were around for two weeks. IMHO there's room for improvement, > so to speak. > >> I hope that helps to clarify things. > > It did to some extent, and thanks again for that.
One other thing I forgot that adds to the confusion is that you will probably want to base you patch on the dev-queue branch of those trees, not the master branch. The master branch is what Jeff submits to Dave if I am not mistaken, while dev-queue is the location for the ongoing development. - Alex
