From: Doug Ledford <dledford@xxxxxxxxxx> Date: Tue, 16 May 2017 12:36:01 -0400 > On Tue, 2017-05-16 at 18:30 +0200, Christoph Hellwig wrote: >> On Tue, May 16, 2017 at 12:29:23PM -0400, David Miller wrote: >> > >> > I can't push back on people with silly coding style and small >> > semantic >> > issues forever. And I think I made a serious effort to keep the >> > patches getting posted over and over again to make sure they got >> > more >> > exposure. >> >> You can tell them to go to linux-rdma. I'm sending people to the >> right >> mailing list all the time. > > Indeed. Every single time a patch comes into linux-rdma that touches > things in net/ or include/net, unless it is exceedingly minor, I check > the To:/Cc: lines on the email and if netdev@ isn't included, or in the > case of complex/tricky items, you aren't directly Cc:ed, then I > specifically tell them to include netdev@ and/or you. I've even had > things like a 12 patch series that buried three netdev@ appropriate > patches at different points in the series and told the submitter to > move all of the netdev@ related patches to the front and submit them to > netdev@ so they can be reviewed as a group before I would move on to > the others. It's just what you do. I've always considered that part > of my job. To be quite honest it wasn't exceedingly clear, even to me, that this had such implications or was directly a RDMA thing. From my perspective while reviewing I saw a patch series adding it's own protocol stack living inside of it's own directory under net/ And, if even one RDMA/infiniband person said to me "you really shouldn't apply this" then I would have dropped it on the spot.