On 10/4/22 12:52 PM, Jakub Kicinski wrote: > On Tue, 4 Oct 2022 11:28:19 -0400 Sean Anderson wrote: >> I noticed that this series was marked "RFC" in patchwork. > > Because the cover letter has RTF in the subject, presumably. > >> I consider this series ready to apply. I am requesting *testing*, in >> particular on 10gec/dtsec boards (P-series). Since no one seems to >> have tried that over the past 4 months that I've been working on this >> series, perhaps the best way for it to get tested is to apply it... > > You know the situation the best as the author, you should make > a clear call on the nature of the posting. It's either RFC/RFT > or a ready-to-go-in posting. Well, I consider the memac stuff to be well tested, but I don't have 10gec/dtsec hardware. I was hoping that someone with the hardware might look at this series if I stuck RFT in the subject. I suspect there are still some bugs in those drivers. > Maybe in smaller subsystems you can post an RFC/RTF and then it > gets applied after some time without a repost but we don't do that. > The normal processing time for a patch is 1-3 days while we like > to give people a week to test. So the patches would have to rot in > the review queue for extra half a week. At our patch rate this is > unsustainable. > Well, I have gotten reviews for the device tree stuff, but the core changes (what I consider to be the actual content of the series) is missing Reviewed-bys. I don't anticipate making any major changes to the series unless I get some feedback one way or another. If having RFT in the subject is preventing that review, I will remove it. --Sean
