Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:20 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::1:20;
From:   =?iso-8859-1?Q?M=E5ns_Rullg=E5rd?= <mans@mansr.com>
To:     Simon Horman <simon.horman@corigine.com>
Cc:     Andrew Lunn <andrew@lunn.ch>,
        Jeroen Hofstee <jhofstee@victronenergy.com>,
        Tony Lindgren <tony@atomide.com>, netdev@vger.kernel.org,
        Mugunthan V N <mugunthanvnm@ti.com>,
        Grygorii Strashko <grygorii.strashko@ti.com>,
        "open list:TI ETHERNET SWITCH DRIVER (CPSW)" 
        <linux-omap@vger.kernel.org>,
        open list <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] net: cpsw: fix obtaining mac address for am3517
References: <1477668756-2651-1-git-send-email-jhofstee@victronenergy.com>
        <20161028155213.2t3nwwe3lqaynaer@atomide.com>
        <d8ad5cab-5183-cddf-fa9a-4e7b9b8c9377@victronenergy.com>
        <20161028181914.mskebckucukzhxhz@atomide.com>
        <yw1x7cru445g.fsf@mansr.com> <ZJX9FBBvOTv10IO4@corigine.com>
        <de546232-0638-318a-535f-169184933a20@victronenergy.com>
        <675a346b-faed-4e86-87e7-b332da540055@lunn.ch>
        <ZJcD4sqqzZCq7Fww@corigine.com> <yw1xttuw3nv4.fsf@mansr.com>
        <ZJcRgHo5skMBLWge@corigine.com>
Date:   Sat, 24 Jun 2023 16:59:47 +0100
In-Reply-To: <ZJcRgHo5skMBLWge@corigine.com> (Simon Horman's message of "Sat,
        24 Jun 2023 17:53:36 +0200")
Message-ID: <yw1xpm5k3l70.fsf@mansr.com>
User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/28.2 (gnu/linux)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8BIT
Precedence: bulk

Simon Horman <simon.horman@corigine.com> writes:

> On Sat, Jun 24, 2023 at 04:02:07PM +0100, M?ns Rullg?rd wrote:
>> Simon Horman <simon.horman@corigine.com> writes:
>> 
>> > On Fri, Jun 23, 2023 at 11:41:10PM +0200, Andrew Lunn wrote:
>> >> > > I feel like I am missing something here.
>> >> > 
>> >> > That is a weird response, you feel like something is missing
>> >> 
>> >> There is. The patch.
>> >> 
>> >> Maintainers have a slightly better memory than a goldfish, but given
>> >> the high volume of patches, we don't remember threads from 2016. Also,
>> >> all our infrastructure has limited memory, this patch is not in lore,
>> >> and it is not in patchworks. So in terms of getting merged, it does
>> >> not exist.
>> >> 
>> >> We do however recommend that if a patch has not been merged within 2
>> >> weeks, it is rebased, any Acked-by: etc tags are added and the patch
>> >> reposted.
>> >
>> > Thanks Andrew, that is also my position.
>> >
>> > A ping for a multi-year old patch is unusual (for me).
>> > I was wondering if there was a back story. I guess not.
>> 
>> The only story here is that I was reviewing the set of patches we apply
>> to our kernels, and I noticed that this one, judging by the discussion,
>> should have been applied to some tree or other ages ago.
>> 
>> Now if it takes 6 years to get a one-line patch (a fix for a regression,
>> no less) accepted, I have better things to spend my time on.
>
> A long time to be sure. As Andrew explained, the patch is now stale.
> It will need to be rebased and reposted in ordered to be considered for
> upstream.

I already did that, only to get more snark in return.

-- 
M?ns Rullg?rd