On Tue, May 19, 2015 at 3:22 PM, Doug Ledford <dledford@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Tue, 2015-05-19 at 07:35 +0300, Or Gerlitz wrote: >> >> I pulled that via a bundle from patchworks. I'll double check it. >> > Did you check it out? fixed it out? >> >> I took a look now, you've rebased to-be-rebased/for-4.2 to 4.1-rc4 and > > Correct. > >> it seems this is what you are going to push into the kernel.org treem > > Correct. > >> but this series is still there with the zillion tested/reviewed/etc >> signature per one 2-3 patch, I think we've agreed this needs to be >> addressed prior to the upstream push, right? > > Incorrect. What you objected to before was the large Cc: list in the > patches. That is gone. What is there now is just the reviewed-by: list > of three people, and the tested-by list of two people. As the entire > patch set as a whole was reviewed and tested by those people, it seems > accurate to me. Doug, I have never ever seen a patch set (specifically the 15~23 part of it) with that level of simplicity and signature/reviewers/tested-by/etc inflation. It's just eye burner. Maybe that long list is OK for patch #1 but very much not to these bunch of 1-2 liner downstream patches. AFAIK, this is Michael's 1st upstream contribution and there's no reason for him to think something here is deeply wrong and/or should have been done differently if we let it go that way into the kernel logs forever. Or. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-rdma" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
