On Tue, 24 Nov 2020 18:24:37 -0700 David Ahern wrote: > On 11/24/20 4:49 PM, Jakub Kicinski wrote: > > > > LGTM! Please address the nit and repost without the iproute2 patch. > > Mixing the iproute2 patch in has confused patchwork: > > > > https://patchwork.kernel.org/project/netdevbpf/list/?series=389667&state=* > > > > Note how it thinks that the iproute2 patch is part of the kernel > > series. This build bot-y thing is pretty new. I'll add a suggestion > > to our process documentation not to mix patches. > > That was me - I suggested doing that. I have done that in the past as > has several other people. I don't recall DaveM having a problem, so > maybe it is the new patchworks that is not liking it?
Right, I'm not sure, it's a coin toss whether pw will get the iproute patch first or not (or maybe since 'i' < 'n' we're likely to get the iproute patch first most of the time?) But it's generally not a huge issue for applying the patch. I just like to see the build bot result, to make sure we're not adding W=1 C=1 warnings. > >> I would like to thank David Ahern for his support during the development of > >> this patchset. > > > > Should I take this to mean that David has review the code off-list? > > reviews and general guidance. Great! (I wasn't sure if I should wait for your review tags, hence the poke.)
