Re: [PATCH] s390: claw network device driver
On Fri, 8 April 2005 22:16:07 +0200, Pavel Machek wrote: > > More importantly, it is still listed as "the list" for network > drivers... > > NETWORK DEVICE DRIVERS > P: Andrew Morton > M: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > P: Jeff Garzik > M: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > L: linux-net@vger.kernel.org > S: Maintained Maybe one of the two maintainers might want to change that? ;) Jörn -- There are two ways of constructing a software design: one way is to make it so simple that there are obviously no deficiencies, and the other is to make it so complicated that there are no obvious deficiencies. -- C. A. R. Hoare - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: [PATCH] s390: claw network device driver
On Fri, 8 April 2005 22:16:07 +0200, Pavel Machek wrote: More importantly, it is still listed as the list for network drivers... NETWORK DEVICE DRIVERS P: Andrew Morton M: [EMAIL PROTECTED] P: Jeff Garzik M: [EMAIL PROTECTED] L: linux-net@vger.kernel.org S: Maintained Maybe one of the two maintainers might want to change that? ;) Jörn -- There are two ways of constructing a software design: one way is to make it so simple that there are obviously no deficiencies, and the other is to make it so complicated that there are no obvious deficiencies. -- C. A. R. Hoare - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-kernel in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: [PATCH] s390: claw network device driver
Hi! > >>As mentioned in the email, you want netdev, not linux-net... > > > > > >Just out of curiosity: why are there two mailing lists? Especially if > >one of them is the Wrong One. > > > > linux-net is mostly dead. I get the impression it is occasionally used > by users. > > netdev (as, perhaps, the name implies) is where the network developers > hang out. Eh... [EMAIL PROTECTED]:~/bin$ grep linux-net /usr/src/linux/MAINTAINERS L: linux-net@vger.kernel.org L: linux-net@vger.kernel.org L: linux-net@vger.kernel.org L: linux-net@vger.kernel.org L: linux-net@vger.kernel.org L: linux-net@vger.kernel.org L: linux-net@vger.kernel.org L: linux-net@vger.kernel.org L: linux-net@vger.kernel.org L: linux-net@vger.kernel.org L: linux-net@vger.kernel.org L: linux-net@vger.kernel.org L: linux-net@vger.kernel.org L: linux-net@vger.kernel.org L: linux-net@vger.kernel.org L: linux-net@vger.kernel.org L: linux-net@vger.kernel.org L: linux-net@vger.kernel.org L: linux-net@vger.kernel.org [EMAIL PROTECTED]:~/bin$ More importantly, it is still listed as "the list" for network drivers... NETWORK DEVICE DRIVERS P: Andrew Morton M: [EMAIL PROTECTED] P: Jeff Garzik M: [EMAIL PROTECTED] L: linux-net@vger.kernel.org S: Maintained NETWORKING [GENERAL] P: Networking Team M: netdev@oss.sgi.com L: linux-net@vger.kernel.org S: Maintained Pavel -- Boycott Kodak -- for their patent abuse against Java. - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: [PATCH] s390: claw network device driver
Hi! As mentioned in the email, you want netdev, not linux-net... Just out of curiosity: why are there two mailing lists? Especially if one of them is the Wrong One. shrug linux-net is mostly dead. I get the impression it is occasionally used by users. netdev (as, perhaps, the name implies) is where the network developers hang out. Eh... [EMAIL PROTECTED]:~/bin$ grep linux-net /usr/src/linux/MAINTAINERS L: linux-net@vger.kernel.org L: linux-net@vger.kernel.org L: linux-net@vger.kernel.org L: linux-net@vger.kernel.org L: linux-net@vger.kernel.org L: linux-net@vger.kernel.org L: linux-net@vger.kernel.org L: linux-net@vger.kernel.org L: linux-net@vger.kernel.org L: linux-net@vger.kernel.org L: linux-net@vger.kernel.org L: linux-net@vger.kernel.org L: linux-net@vger.kernel.org L: linux-net@vger.kernel.org L: linux-net@vger.kernel.org L: linux-net@vger.kernel.org L: linux-net@vger.kernel.org L: linux-net@vger.kernel.org L: linux-net@vger.kernel.org [EMAIL PROTECTED]:~/bin$ More importantly, it is still listed as the list for network drivers... NETWORK DEVICE DRIVERS P: Andrew Morton M: [EMAIL PROTECTED] P: Jeff Garzik M: [EMAIL PROTECTED] L: linux-net@vger.kernel.org S: Maintained NETWORKING [GENERAL] P: Networking Team M: netdev@oss.sgi.com L: linux-net@vger.kernel.org S: Maintained Pavel -- Boycott Kodak -- for their patent abuse against Java. - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-kernel in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: [PATCH] s390: claw network device driver
On Tue, 29 March 2005 17:44:33 -0500, Jeff Garzik wrote: > > It doesn't matter that much to me. If you want to undertake > the removal of linux-net as your personal mission, I won't stop you :) At least it weakens your position when you state "Random newbie John Doe failed to pick the correct list, so I never saw his requests for review." And yes, I'd like to see linux-net either used, removed or simply forwarded to netdev. Jörn -- Invincibility is in oneself, vulnerability is in the opponent. -- Sun Tzu - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: [PATCH] s390: claw network device driver
On Tue, 29 March 2005 17:44:33 -0500, Jeff Garzik wrote: shrug It doesn't matter that much to me. If you want to undertake the removal of linux-net as your personal mission, I won't stop you :) At least it weakens your position when you state Random newbie John Doe failed to pick the correct list, so I never saw his requests for review. And yes, I'd like to see linux-net either used, removed or simply forwarded to netdev. Jörn -- Invincibility is in oneself, vulnerability is in the opponent. -- Sun Tzu - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-kernel in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: [PATCH] s390: claw network device driver
Jörn Engel wrote: On Tue, 29 March 2005 15:06:04 -0500, Jeff Garzik wrote: Jörn Engel wrote: Just out of curiosity: why are there two mailing lists? Especially if one of them is the Wrong One. linux-net is mostly dead. I get the impression it is occasionally used by users. netdev (as, perhaps, the name implies) is where the network developers hang out. Ok, I figured as much. But then, why is linux-net not just deleted? Bouncing mails would be an indication that noone will read them, right? It doesn't matter that much to me. If you want to undertake the removal of linux-net as your personal mission, I won't stop you :) Jeff - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: [PATCH] s390: claw network device driver
On Tue, 29 March 2005 15:06:04 -0500, Jeff Garzik wrote: > Jörn Engel wrote: > > > >Just out of curiosity: why are there two mailing lists? Especially if > >one of them is the Wrong One. > > > > linux-net is mostly dead. I get the impression it is occasionally used > by users. > > netdev (as, perhaps, the name implies) is where the network developers > hang out. Ok, I figured as much. But then, why is linux-net not just deleted? Bouncing mails would be an indication that noone will read them, right? Jörn -- There's nothing better for promoting creativity in a medium than making an audience feel "Hmm I could do better than that!" -- Douglas Adams in a slashdot interview - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: [PATCH] s390: claw network device driver
Jörn Engel wrote: On Tue, 29 March 2005 02:10:02 -0500, Jeff Garzik wrote: As mentioned in the email, you want netdev, not linux-net... Just out of curiosity: why are there two mailing lists? Especially if one of them is the Wrong One. linux-net is mostly dead. I get the impression it is occasionally used by users. netdev (as, perhaps, the name implies) is where the network developers hang out. Jeff - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: [PATCH] s390: claw network device driver
Martin Schwidefsky wrote: Hi Jeff, Was cc'ed to linux-net last Thursday, but it looks like the messages was too large and the vger server munched it. As mentioned in the email, you want netdev, not linux-net... we are currently thinking about changing the sign-off chain for the s390 network patches. Dave suggested that they should go through your hands. If that is ok with you the new sign-off chain would be Frank Pavlic, Jeff Garzik, Bitkeeper. This would solve two problems: 1) Frank would create the patches and since he knows much more about linux networking then I do, hopefully the patches and the descriptions will improve (and you can probably teach him to send the patches to netdev instead of linux-net). 2) The patches won't just slip in anymore but get a real review. That's OK with me. As an example, on the MIPS side of things, Ralf sends most MIPS stuff straight to Linus, but I queue all his drivers/net/* patches into my queue, and that gets submitted separately (though just as rapidly) upstream with other net driver changes. I certainly do recognize that qeth, in particular, is a network driver unlike all others in the kernel ;-) Jeff - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: [PATCH] s390: claw network device driver
Andrew Morton wrote: Jeff Garzik <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Andrew Morton wrote: Jeff Garzik <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Was cc'ed to linux-net last Thursday, but it looks like the messages was too large and the vger server munched it. This also brings up a larger question... why was a completely unreviewed net driver merged? Because nobody noticed that it didn't make it to the mailing list, obviously. That's ducking the question. Let me rephrase. Why was a complete lack of response judged to be an ACK? That's not uncommon. I don't ask people "are you reading the mailing list which you should be reading" unless I think it's someone who doesn't read the mailing lists which they should be reading. For new drivers, that's a -horrible- precedent. You are quite skilled at poking random hackers :) why not poke somebody to ack a new drivers? In this case I didn't think about it very hard, sorry - figured it was s390 stuff and it hence falls under the "if it breaks, it's the s390 team's problem" exemption. Yeah, and I -am- sympathetic to that sort of thing. I just feel really strongly that we need to have a higher-than-normal barrier for new code. It may be an S/390 driver, but Jeff's Law of Bad Code states "where there is bad code, it will be copied." Propagating the 2.2.x-era 'tbusy' flag to yet more drivers is something I absolutely do not want to happen. I also feel that we have shifted from a "Linus doesn't scale" problem to an "akpm doesn't scale" problem. As much work as you put it (lots!), you can't possibly be expected to review all the new drivers and such. I would prefer a "new driver must be acked by at least one non-author" rule. We need -some- barrier to entry. If that rule is OK with others, I'm quite willing to do that for my areas like libata. It's not like this driver (or many of the other new drivers) desperately need to get into the kernel ASAP, so desperate that a lack of review was OK. True. But it's not as if we can't fix stuff up after it's merged up. The reasons for holding off on a merge would be: a) We're not sure that the feature should be merged at all b) Holding off on a merge is a tool we use to motivate the submitter to fix the code up c) The merge breaks existing stuff. I don't think any of those things apply here. The only downside is the increased bk patch volume. In general, I have supported your philosophy of accelerated upstreaming of code. I just worry about going too far, and this driver was a case-in-point. As Linus and others have pointed out many times in the past, there is no harm in -not- upstreaming code until it is "ready." Our current system of maintainers/lieutenants is sufficiently distributed as to allow this. Jeff - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: [PATCH] s390: claw network device driver
On Tue, 29 March 2005 02:10:02 -0500, Jeff Garzik wrote: > > As mentioned in the email, you want netdev, not linux-net... Just out of curiosity: why are there two mailing lists? Especially if one of them is the Wrong One. Jörn -- The competent programmer is fully aware of the strictly limited size of his own skull; therefore he approaches the programming task in full humility, and among other things he avoids clever tricks like the plague. -- Edsger W. Dijkstra - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: [PATCH] s390: claw network device driver
Jeff Garzik <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > Was cc'ed to linux-net last Thursday, but it looks like the messages was > > too large and the vger server munched it. > > This also brings up a larger question... why was a completely unreviewed > net driver merged? Because nobody noticed that it didn't make it to the mailing list, obviously. - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: [PATCH] s390: claw network device driver
Jeff Garzik <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Andrew Morton wrote: > > Jeff Garzik <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > >> > Was cc'ed to linux-net last Thursday, but it looks like the messages was > >> > too large and the vger server munched it. > >> > >> This also brings up a larger question... why was a completely unreviewed > >> net driver merged? > > > > > > Because nobody noticed that it didn't make it to the mailing list, > > obviously. > > That's ducking the question. Let me rephrase. > > Why was a complete lack of response judged to be an ACK? That's not uncommon. I don't ask people "are you reading the mailing list which you should be reading" unless I think it's someone who doesn't read the mailing lists which they should be reading. > For new drivers, that's a -horrible- precedent. You are quite skilled > at poking random hackers :) why not poke somebody to ack a new drivers? In this case I didn't think about it very hard, sorry - figured it was s390 stuff and it hence falls under the "if it breaks, it's the s390 team's problem" exemption. > It's not like this driver (or many of the other new drivers) > desperately need to get into the kernel ASAP, so desperate that a lack > of review was OK. True. But it's not as if we can't fix stuff up after it's merged up. The reasons for holding off on a merge would be: a) We're not sure that the feature should be merged at all b) Holding off on a merge is a tool we use to motivate the submitter to fix the code up c) The merge breaks existing stuff. I don't think any of those things apply here. The only downside is the increased bk patch volume. That being said, if there had been review comments I would have delayed the merge. - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: [PATCH] s390: claw network device driver
On Mon, Mar 28, 2005 at 11:08:30PM -0800, Andrew Morton wrote: > Jeff Garzik <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > Linux Kernel Mailing List wrote: > > > ChangeSet 1.2231.1.122, 2005/03/28 19:50:29-08:00, [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > > > [PATCH] s390: claw network device driver > > > > > > Add support for claw network devices. > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Martin Schwidefsky <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > Signed-off-by: Andrew Morton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > Signed-off-by: Linus Torvalds <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > > Grumpity grump grump grump. How tough is it to send new net drivers to > > netdev and me for review? > > Was cc'ed to linux-net last Thursday, but it looks like the messages was > too large and the vger server munched it. As mentioned in the email, you want netdev, not linux-net... Jeff - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: [PATCH] s390: claw network device driver
Andrew Morton wrote: Jeff Garzik <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Was cc'ed to linux-net last Thursday, but it looks like the messages was > too large and the vger server munched it. This also brings up a larger question... why was a completely unreviewed net driver merged? Because nobody noticed that it didn't make it to the mailing list, obviously. That's ducking the question. Let me rephrase. Why was a complete lack of response judged to be an ACK? For new drivers, that's a -horrible- precedent. You are quite skilled at poking random hackers :) why not poke somebody to ack a new drivers? It's not like this driver (or many of the other new drivers) desperately need to get into the kernel ASAP, so desperate that a lack of review was OK. Jeff - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: [PATCH] s390: claw network device driver
Andrew Morton wrote: Jeff Garzik [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Was cc'ed to linux-net last Thursday, but it looks like the messages was too large and the vger server munched it. This also brings up a larger question... why was a completely unreviewed net driver merged? Because nobody noticed that it didn't make it to the mailing list, obviously. That's ducking the question. Let me rephrase. Why was a complete lack of response judged to be an ACK? For new drivers, that's a -horrible- precedent. You are quite skilled at poking random hackers :) why not poke somebody to ack a new drivers? It's not like this driver (or many of the other new drivers) desperately need to get into the kernel ASAP, so desperate that a lack of review was OK. Jeff - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-kernel in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: [PATCH] s390: claw network device driver
On Mon, Mar 28, 2005 at 11:08:30PM -0800, Andrew Morton wrote: Jeff Garzik [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Linux Kernel Mailing List wrote: ChangeSet 1.2231.1.122, 2005/03/28 19:50:29-08:00, [EMAIL PROTECTED] [PATCH] s390: claw network device driver Add support for claw network devices. Signed-off-by: Martin Schwidefsky [EMAIL PROTECTED] Signed-off-by: Andrew Morton [EMAIL PROTECTED] Signed-off-by: Linus Torvalds [EMAIL PROTECTED] Grumpity grump grump grump. How tough is it to send new net drivers to netdev and me for review? Was cc'ed to linux-net last Thursday, but it looks like the messages was too large and the vger server munched it. As mentioned in the email, you want netdev, not linux-net... Jeff - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-kernel in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: [PATCH] s390: claw network device driver
Jeff Garzik [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Andrew Morton wrote: Jeff Garzik [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Was cc'ed to linux-net last Thursday, but it looks like the messages was too large and the vger server munched it. This also brings up a larger question... why was a completely unreviewed net driver merged? Because nobody noticed that it didn't make it to the mailing list, obviously. That's ducking the question. Let me rephrase. Why was a complete lack of response judged to be an ACK? That's not uncommon. I don't ask people are you reading the mailing list which you should be reading unless I think it's someone who doesn't read the mailing lists which they should be reading. For new drivers, that's a -horrible- precedent. You are quite skilled at poking random hackers :) why not poke somebody to ack a new drivers? In this case I didn't think about it very hard, sorry - figured it was s390 stuff and it hence falls under the if it breaks, it's the s390 team's problem exemption. It's not like this driver (or many of the other new drivers) desperately need to get into the kernel ASAP, so desperate that a lack of review was OK. True. But it's not as if we can't fix stuff up after it's merged up. The reasons for holding off on a merge would be: a) We're not sure that the feature should be merged at all b) Holding off on a merge is a tool we use to motivate the submitter to fix the code up c) The merge breaks existing stuff. I don't think any of those things apply here. The only downside is the increased bk patch volume. That being said, if there had been review comments I would have delayed the merge. - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-kernel in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: [PATCH] s390: claw network device driver
Jeff Garzik [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Was cc'ed to linux-net last Thursday, but it looks like the messages was too large and the vger server munched it. This also brings up a larger question... why was a completely unreviewed net driver merged? Because nobody noticed that it didn't make it to the mailing list, obviously. - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-kernel in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: [PATCH] s390: claw network device driver
On Tue, 29 March 2005 02:10:02 -0500, Jeff Garzik wrote: As mentioned in the email, you want netdev, not linux-net... Just out of curiosity: why are there two mailing lists? Especially if one of them is the Wrong One. Jörn -- The competent programmer is fully aware of the strictly limited size of his own skull; therefore he approaches the programming task in full humility, and among other things he avoids clever tricks like the plague. -- Edsger W. Dijkstra - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-kernel in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: [PATCH] s390: claw network device driver
Andrew Morton wrote: Jeff Garzik [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Andrew Morton wrote: Jeff Garzik [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Was cc'ed to linux-net last Thursday, but it looks like the messages was too large and the vger server munched it. This also brings up a larger question... why was a completely unreviewed net driver merged? Because nobody noticed that it didn't make it to the mailing list, obviously. That's ducking the question. Let me rephrase. Why was a complete lack of response judged to be an ACK? That's not uncommon. I don't ask people are you reading the mailing list which you should be reading unless I think it's someone who doesn't read the mailing lists which they should be reading. For new drivers, that's a -horrible- precedent. You are quite skilled at poking random hackers :) why not poke somebody to ack a new drivers? In this case I didn't think about it very hard, sorry - figured it was s390 stuff and it hence falls under the if it breaks, it's the s390 team's problem exemption. Yeah, and I -am- sympathetic to that sort of thing. I just feel really strongly that we need to have a higher-than-normal barrier for new code. It may be an S/390 driver, but Jeff's Law of Bad Code states where there is bad code, it will be copied. Propagating the 2.2.x-era 'tbusy' flag to yet more drivers is something I absolutely do not want to happen. I also feel that we have shifted from a Linus doesn't scale problem to an akpm doesn't scale problem. As much work as you put it (lots!), you can't possibly be expected to review all the new drivers and such. I would prefer a new driver must be acked by at least one non-author rule. We need -some- barrier to entry. If that rule is OK with others, I'm quite willing to do that for my areas like libata. It's not like this driver (or many of the other new drivers) desperately need to get into the kernel ASAP, so desperate that a lack of review was OK. True. But it's not as if we can't fix stuff up after it's merged up. The reasons for holding off on a merge would be: a) We're not sure that the feature should be merged at all b) Holding off on a merge is a tool we use to motivate the submitter to fix the code up c) The merge breaks existing stuff. I don't think any of those things apply here. The only downside is the increased bk patch volume. In general, I have supported your philosophy of accelerated upstreaming of code. I just worry about going too far, and this driver was a case-in-point. As Linus and others have pointed out many times in the past, there is no harm in -not- upstreaming code until it is ready. Our current system of maintainers/lieutenants is sufficiently distributed as to allow this. Jeff - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-kernel in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: [PATCH] s390: claw network device driver
Martin Schwidefsky wrote: Hi Jeff, Was cc'ed to linux-net last Thursday, but it looks like the messages was too large and the vger server munched it. As mentioned in the email, you want netdev, not linux-net... we are currently thinking about changing the sign-off chain for the s390 network patches. Dave suggested that they should go through your hands. If that is ok with you the new sign-off chain would be Frank Pavlic, Jeff Garzik, Bitkeeper. This would solve two problems: 1) Frank would create the patches and since he knows much more about linux networking then I do, hopefully the patches and the descriptions will improve (and you can probably teach him to send the patches to netdev instead of linux-net). 2) The patches won't just slip in anymore but get a real review. That's OK with me. As an example, on the MIPS side of things, Ralf sends most MIPS stuff straight to Linus, but I queue all his drivers/net/* patches into my queue, and that gets submitted separately (though just as rapidly) upstream with other net driver changes. I certainly do recognize that qeth, in particular, is a network driver unlike all others in the kernel ;-) Jeff - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-kernel in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: [PATCH] s390: claw network device driver
Jörn Engel wrote: On Tue, 29 March 2005 02:10:02 -0500, Jeff Garzik wrote: As mentioned in the email, you want netdev, not linux-net... Just out of curiosity: why are there two mailing lists? Especially if one of them is the Wrong One. shrug linux-net is mostly dead. I get the impression it is occasionally used by users. netdev (as, perhaps, the name implies) is where the network developers hang out. Jeff - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-kernel in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: [PATCH] s390: claw network device driver
On Tue, 29 March 2005 15:06:04 -0500, Jeff Garzik wrote: Jörn Engel wrote: Just out of curiosity: why are there two mailing lists? Especially if one of them is the Wrong One. shrug linux-net is mostly dead. I get the impression it is occasionally used by users. netdev (as, perhaps, the name implies) is where the network developers hang out. Ok, I figured as much. But then, why is linux-net not just deleted? Bouncing mails would be an indication that noone will read them, right? Jörn -- There's nothing better for promoting creativity in a medium than making an audience feel Hmm I could do better than that! -- Douglas Adams in a slashdot interview - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-kernel in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: [PATCH] s390: claw network device driver
Jörn Engel wrote: On Tue, 29 March 2005 15:06:04 -0500, Jeff Garzik wrote: Jörn Engel wrote: Just out of curiosity: why are there two mailing lists? Especially if one of them is the Wrong One. shrug linux-net is mostly dead. I get the impression it is occasionally used by users. netdev (as, perhaps, the name implies) is where the network developers hang out. Ok, I figured as much. But then, why is linux-net not just deleted? Bouncing mails would be an indication that noone will read them, right? shrug It doesn't matter that much to me. If you want to undertake the removal of linux-net as your personal mission, I won't stop you :) Jeff - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-kernel in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: [PATCH] s390: claw network device driver
Jeff Garzik <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Linux Kernel Mailing List wrote: > > ChangeSet 1.2231.1.122, 2005/03/28 19:50:29-08:00, [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > [PATCH] s390: claw network device driver > > > >Add support for claw network devices. > > > >Signed-off-by: Martin Schwidefsky <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >Signed-off-by: Andrew Morton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >Signed-off-by: Linus Torvalds <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > Grumpity grump grump grump. How tough is it to send new net drivers to > netdev and me for review? Was cc'ed to linux-net last Thursday, but it looks like the messages was too large and the vger server munched it. - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: [PATCH] s390: claw network device driver
Jeff Garzik [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Linux Kernel Mailing List wrote: ChangeSet 1.2231.1.122, 2005/03/28 19:50:29-08:00, [EMAIL PROTECTED] [PATCH] s390: claw network device driver Add support for claw network devices. Signed-off-by: Martin Schwidefsky [EMAIL PROTECTED] Signed-off-by: Andrew Morton [EMAIL PROTECTED] Signed-off-by: Linus Torvalds [EMAIL PROTECTED] Grumpity grump grump grump. How tough is it to send new net drivers to netdev and me for review? Was cc'ed to linux-net last Thursday, but it looks like the messages was too large and the vger server munched it. - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-kernel in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
