On 08/01/24 17:56, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote: > On 08/01/2024 12:34, Siddharth Vadapalli wrote: >>>>> >>>>> Why is this patch incomplete? What is missing here? What are you asking >>>>> about as RFC? >>>> >>>> Since the merge window is closed, I was hoping to get the patch reviewed in >>>> order to get any "Reviewed-by" tags if possible. That way, I will be able to >>>> post it again as v1 along with the tags when the merge window opens. For that >>> >>> This is v1, so that would be v2. >>> >>>> reason, I have marked it as an RFC patch. Is there an alternative to this "RFC >>>> patch" method that I have followed? Please let me know. >>> >>> Then how does it differ from posting without RFC? Sorry, RFC is >>> incomplete work. Often ignored during review. >> >> I was under the impression that posting patches when the merge window is closed >> will be met with a "post your patch later when the merge window is open" >> response. That is why I chose the "RFC patch" path since RFCs can be posted anytime. >> >> For the Networking Subsystem, it is documented that patches with new features >> shouldn't be posted when the merge window is closed. I have mostly posted >> patches for the Networking Subsystem and am not sure about the rules for the >> device-tree bindings and PCI Subsystems. To be on the safe side I posted this >> patch as an RFC patch. > > Ah, so you want to go around that policy by posting non-RFC patch as > RFC. It does not work like that. Thank you for clarifying. May I post the v2 of this patch in that case, after rebasing it on the latest linux-next? I wish to receive feedback or Reviewed-by tags for the v2 patch and post the v3 accordingly when the merge window opens again. -- Regards, Siddharth.
