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.)