On Fri, Nov 18, 2016 at 4:01 AM, Doug Ledford <dledf...@redhat.com> wrote: > On 11/17/2016 5:24 PM, Or Gerlitz wrote:
[...] > I agree with you. It doesn't fix your patch. The commit message can > still be fixed up. >> Please do not send it to Linus and wait for them to respond. I >> disagree that it fixes my commit b/c my commit was prior to when >> route-able RoCE was introduced and on that time TOS had no relation. > I agree. A better fix tag would be the commit that added RoCEv2 support. But this is the smaller part of the problem. The bigger part is that I have asked for clarifications on the patch and they didn't provide anything. So if you are picking patches where a reviewer comments are ignored, what lesson are you teaching the submitter, that he can just continue with this practice? why you letting this go that way? >> does a tiny enhancement for a 10y old commit of Roland, why you think >> we need it in 4.9-rc6 or 7?? > I don't, it's in the mlx-next branch which means I'll queue it up for > the 4.10 merge window. I have no plan on sending that branch for 4.9-rc. Are you going to comment on that to the submitter? if not, they are going to continue with this practice. How are we supposed to realize from patchworks + your github branches that patches that were submitted for 4.9-rc are picked for 4.10? this is very confusing and error prone too. Please comment also on the bunch of patches I pointed you where the copy you have picked into your tree (pulled it from somewhere?) isn't what was submitted. Or.
