Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.18;
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <20201212090234.0362d64f@kicinski-fedora-pc1c0hjn.dhcp.thefacebook.com>
 <20201214103008.14783-1-gomonovych@gmail.com> <20201214111608.GE5005@unreal>
 <20201214110351.29ae7abb@kicinski-fedora-pc1c0hjn.dhcp.thefacebook.com>
 <1113d2d634d46adb9384e09c3f70cb8376a815c4.camel@perches.com>
 <20201215051838.GH5005@unreal> <19198242da4d01804dc20cb41e870b05041bede2.camel@perches.com>
 <20201215061847.GL5005@unreal>
In-Reply-To: <20201215061847.GL5005@unreal>
From:   Vasyl <gomonovych@gmail.com>
Date:   Tue, 15 Dec 2020 13:27:28 +0100
Message-ID: <CAHYXAnJZrxOPTttd4Z1v4f1ixwarxsJpz8YYZNDL_5r4_SkyeQ@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] net/mlx4: Use true,false for bool variable
To:     Leon Romanovsky <leon@kernel.org>
Cc:     Joe Perches <joe@perches.com>, Jakub Kicinski <kuba@kernel.org>,
        tariqt@nvidia.com, "David S. Miller" <davem@davemloft.net>,
        Netdev <netdev@vger.kernel.org>, linux-rdma@vger.kernel.org,
        LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Precedence: bulk

Hi,

Ouuu it was fixed recently in net-next.
Sorry, I missed that.
Thanks for submitting policy clarification I am going to adapt to it.

Thanks

On Tue, Dec 15, 2020 at 7:18 AM Leon Romanovsky <leon@kernel.org> wrote:
>
> On Mon, Dec 14, 2020 at 09:37:34PM -0800, Joe Perches wrote:
> > On Tue, 2020-12-15 at 07:18 +0200, Leon Romanovsky wrote:
> > > On Mon, Dec 14, 2020 at 11:15:01AM -0800, Joe Perches wrote:
> > > > I prefer revisions to single patches (as opposed to large patch ser=
ies)
> > > > in the same thread.
> > >
> > > It depends which side you are in that game. From the reviewer point o=
f
> > > view, such submission breaks flow very badly. It unfolds the already
> > > reviewed thread, messes with the order and many more little annoying
> > > things.
> >
> > This is where I disagree with you.  I am a reviewer here.
>
> It is ok, different people have different views.
>
> >
> > Not having context to be able to inspect vN -> vN+1 is made
> > more difficult not having the original patch available and
> > having to search history for it.
>
> I'm following after specific subsystems and see all patches there,
> so for me and Jakub context already exists.
>
> Bottom line, it depends on the workflow.
>
> >
> > Almost no one adds URL links to older submissions below the ---.
>
> Too bad, maybe it is time to enforce it.
>
> >
> > Were that a standard mechanism below the --- line, then it would
> > be OK.
>
> So let's me summarize, we (RDMA and netdev subsystems) would like to ask
> do not submit new patch revisions as reply-to.
>
> Thanks


--=20
=D0=94=D0=BE=D0=B1=D1=80=D0=BE=D1=97 =D0=B2=D0=B0=D0=BC =D0=BF=D0=BE=D1=80=
=D0=B8 =D0=B4=D0=BD=D1=8F.