On 11/28/2017 1:15 AM, Leon Romanovsky wrote:
On Mon, Nov 27, 2017 at 11:36:37AM -0700, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
On Mon, Nov 27, 2017 at 10:41:21AM +0800, Wei Hu (Xavier) wrote:
This patch-set introduces three patches to fix about the memory
related issues.
If these patches are for-rc can you revise the commit message to more
clearly explain what the bug is, and supply Fixes lines?
Otherwise these will go to 4.16
Jason,
If you treat all unmarked patches (without mentioning in cover letter or
subject title) as targeted to for-next, it will make your life much more
easier than trying to pick each patch alone. As an outcome, it will make
the patch flow more predictable for us.
Thanks
Agree with Leon here. Unless otherwise stated, I would think for-next
should always be the default target. I try to tag my subject with
for-next or for-rc to make it clear.
Now of course that being said here is an exception. I sent a series 2
weeks ago that didn't make Doug's pull request for 4.15. I'd like to see
some of that stuff land in the rc if there are no objections. The driver
changes at least, the CM/SA can probably push off to for-next.
I could resubmit just the series, or you could just pick the 4 driver
patches from patchworks whatever is easiest.
-Denny
--
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
