Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67;
Date:   Wed, 27 Mar 2019 15:28:06 +0100
From:   Michal Kubecek <mkubecek@suse.cz>
To:     Jiri Pirko <jiri@resnulli.us>
Cc:     David Miller <davem@davemloft.net>, netdev@vger.kernel.org,
        Jakub Kicinski <jakub.kicinski@netronome.com>,
        Andrew Lunn <andrew@lunn.ch>,
        Florian Fainelli <f.fainelli@gmail.com>,
        John Linville <linville@tuxdriver.com>,
        Stephen Hemminger <stephen@networkplumber.org>,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next v5 00/22] ethtool netlink interface, part 1
Message-ID: <20190327142806.GT26076@unicorn.suse.cz>
References: <cover.1553532199.git.mkubecek@suse.cz>
 <20190327130928.GC14297@nanopsycho>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20190327130928.GC14297@nanopsycho>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.10.1 (2018-07-13)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Wed, Mar 27, 2019 at 02:09:28PM +0100, Jiri Pirko wrote:
> Could you please perhaps split the patchset so it contains max ~15 patches?

Would 1-17 still be acceptable? The thing is that patch 16 is the first
where some "normal" notification (i.e. not EVENT one) is sent and
patch 17 is the first implementation of a request modifying data.
I believe having at least one example of both querying and setting data
would help the review discussion.

Or perhaps I could leave GET_INFO related patches (at least second and
third) for later.

Michal