On 26.05.2023 15:23, Stefano Garzarella wrote: > On Fri, May 26, 2023 at 02:36:17PM +0300, Arseniy Krasnov wrote: >> >> >> On 26.05.2023 13:30, Stefano Garzarella wrote: >>> On Thu, May 25, 2023 at 06:56:42PM +0300, Arseniy Krasnov wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>> On 22.05.2023 10:39, Arseniy Krasnov wrote: >>>> >>>> This patchset is unstable with SOCK_SEQPACKET. I'll fix it. >>> >>> Thanks for let us know! >>> >>> I'm thinking if we should start split this series in two, because it >>> becomes too big. >>> >>> But let keep this for RFC, we can decide later. An idea is to send >>> the first 7 patches with a preparation series, and the next ones with a >>> second series. >> >> Hello, ok! So i'll split patchset in the following way: >> 1) Patches which adds new fields/flags and checks. But all of this is not used, >> as it is preparation. >> 2) Second part starts to use it and also carries tests. > > As long as they're RFCs, maybe you can keep them together if they're > related, possibly specifying in the cover letter where you'd like to > split them. When we agree that we are in good shape, we can split it. Sure! I'll add this information in cover letter of v4 Thanks, Arseniy > > Thanks, > Stefano >
