On 23.03.2023 14:11, Stefano Garzarella wrote: > On Thu, Mar 23, 2023 at 01:53:40PM +0300, Arseniy Krasnov wrote: >> >> >> On 23.03.2023 13:48, Stefano Garzarella wrote: >>> On Thu, Mar 23, 2023 at 01:01:40PM +0300, Arseniy Krasnov wrote: >>>> Hello Stefano, >>>> >>>> thanks for review! >>> >>> You're welcome! >>> >>>> >>>> Since both patches are R-b, i can wait for a few days, then send this >>>> as 'net-next'? >>> >>> Yep, maybe even this series could have been directly without RFC ;-) >> >> "directly", You mean 'net' tag? Of just without RFC, like [PATCH v5]. In this case >> it will be merged to 'net' right? > > Sorry for the confusion. I meant without RFC but with net-next. > > Being enhancements and not fixes this is definitely net-next material, > so even in RFCs you can already use the net-next tag, so the reviewer > knows which branch to apply them to. (It's not super important since > being RFCs it's expected that it's not complete, but it's definitely an > help for the reviewer). > > Speaking of the RFC, we usually use it for patches that we don't think > are ready to be merged. But when they reach a good state (like this > series for example), we can start publishing them already without the > RFC tag. > > Anyway, if you are not sure, use RFC and then when a maintainer has > reviewed them all, surely you can remove the RFC tag. > > Hope this helps, at least that's what I usually do, so don't take that > as a strict rule ;-) Ah ok, I see now, thanks for details Thanks, Arseniy > > Thanks, > Stefano >
