On Sun, 15 Dec 2024 08:25:44 +0200 Tariq Toukan wrote: > > What do you expect we'll do with this series? > > > > If you expect it to be set to Awaiting Upstream - could you make sure > > that the cover letter has "mlx5-next" in the subject? That will makes > > it easier to automate in patchwork. > > The relevant patches have mlx5-next in their topic. > Should the cover letter as well? > What about other non-IFC patches, keep them with net-next? > > > If you expect the series to be applied / merged - LMK, I can try > > to explain why that's impossible.. > > The motivation is to avoid potential conflicts with rdma trees. > AFAIK this is the agreed practice and is being followed for some time... > > If not, what's the suggested procedure then? > How do you suggest getting these IFC changes to both net and rdma trees? You can post just the mlx5-next patches (preferably) or the combined set (with mlx5-next in the cover letter tag). Wait a day or two (normal review period, like netdev maintainers would when applying to net-next). Apply the mlx5-next patches to mlx5-next. Send us a pull request with just the mlx5-next stuff. Post the net-next patches which depend on mlx5-next interface changes. We can count this as the posting, so feel free to apply patch 1 to mlx5-next and send the PR.
