On Mon, 2015-09-21 at 11:44 -0700, David Miller wrote: ... > This is a huge and complex submission and I'm already burnt out > reading the changes thus far. > > You have a lot to fix up and you can expect many revisions to be > necessary before these changes are ready for integration upstream. > And that's if you are lucky and someone actually continues to review > this work. > Hi Dave, I appreciate the time you have already spent analyzing my SMC code. It is large and complex, and I understand that you are not willing to spend the time to review the overall code in future iterations. Before me spending more time on SMC, I need a hint about *your* preferred way to submit that large piece of code in general, and about the overall future of SMC: - Supposed the SMC code is improved to an acceptable quality and maybe even gets additional reviewers, are you willing to accept the code at all, given it is self-contained (our own can of worms, as you said)? - I realized that I have to split up the large chunk of code into smaller patches. Do you prefer going with a first minimal self contained patch set first, providing basic communication capabilities, and then incrementally add features like failover, setsockopt, urgent-data etc. over time? Or, on submissions, do you always want to see a patch series of the full set of features and values according to the SMC design? Kind regards, Ursula -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-s390" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
