On Tue, Dec 10, 2019 at 10:41:54AM -0800, Jeff Kirsher wrote: > On Tue, 2019-12-10 at 14:25 -0400, Jason Gunthorpe wrote: > > On Tue, Dec 10, 2019 at 10:06:41AM -0800, Jeff Kirsher wrote: > > > > Please don't send new RDMA drivers in pull requests to net. This > > > > driver is completely unreviewed at this point. > > > > > > This was done because you requested a for a single pull request in an > > > earlier submission 9 months ago. I am fine with breaking up > > > submission, > > > even though the RDMA driver would be dependent upon the virtual bus and > > > LAN > > > driver changes. > > > > If I said that I ment a single pull request *to RDMA* with Dave's acks > > on the net side, not a single pull request to net. > > > > Given the growth of the net side changes this may be better to use a > > shared branch methodology. > > I am open to any suggestions you have on submitting these changes that has > the least amount of thrash for all the maintainers involved. > > My concerns for submitting the network driver changes to the RDMA tree is > that it will cause David Miller a headache when taking additional LAN > driver changes that would be affected by the changes that were taken into > the RDMA tree. If you send the PR to rdma then you must refrain from sending changes to net that would conflict with it. I also do not want a headache with conflicts to a huge rdma driver in net, so you cannot send it to -net. Mellanox uses a shared branch approach now, it is working well but requires discipline to execute. You can also send your changes to net, wait a cycle then send the rdma changes. IIRC one of the other drivers is working this way. Jason
