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 16:19:31 +0100
From:   Jiri Pirko <jiri@resnulli.us>
To:     Michal Kubecek <mkubecek@suse.cz>
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: <20190327151931.GD14297@nanopsycho>
References: <cover.1553532199.git.mkubecek@suse.cz>
 <20190327130928.GC14297@nanopsycho>
 <20190327142806.GT26076@unicorn.suse.cz>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20190327142806.GT26076@unicorn.suse.cz>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.11.3 (2019-02-01)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

Wed, Mar 27, 2019 at 03:28:06PM CET, mkubecek@suse.cz wrote:
>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.

I think 17 is okay. Please split if possible.

>
>Michal