mbox series

[net-next,0/8] ionic: hwstamp tweaks

Message ID 20210407232001.16670-1-snelson@pensando.io
Headers show
Series ionic: hwstamp tweaks | expand

Message

Shannon Nelson April 7, 2021, 11:19 p.m. UTC
A few little changes after review comments and
additional internal testing.

Shannon Nelson (8):
  ionic: fix up a couple of code style nits
  ionic: remove unnecessary compat ifdef
  ionic: check for valid tx_mode on SKBTX_HW_TSTAMP xmit
  ionic: add SKBTX_IN_PROGRESS
  ionic: re-start ptp after queues up
  ionic: ignore EBUSY on queue start
  ionic: add ts_config replay
  ionic: extend ts_config set locking

 .../net/ethernet/pensando/ionic/ionic_lif.c   |  18 ++--
 .../net/ethernet/pensando/ionic/ionic_lif.h   |   6 ++
 .../net/ethernet/pensando/ionic/ionic_phc.c   | 102 +++++++++++-------
 .../net/ethernet/pensando/ionic/ionic_txrx.c  |   3 +-
 4 files changed, 79 insertions(+), 50 deletions(-)

Comments

patchwork-bot+netdevbpf@kernel.org April 8, 2021, 8:30 p.m. UTC | #1
Hello:

This series was applied to netdev/net-next.git (refs/heads/master):

On Wed,  7 Apr 2021 16:19:53 -0700 you wrote:
> A few little changes after review comments and

> additional internal testing.

> 

> Shannon Nelson (8):

>   ionic: fix up a couple of code style nits

>   ionic: remove unnecessary compat ifdef

>   ionic: check for valid tx_mode on SKBTX_HW_TSTAMP xmit

>   ionic: add SKBTX_IN_PROGRESS

>   ionic: re-start ptp after queues up

>   ionic: ignore EBUSY on queue start

>   ionic: add ts_config replay

>   ionic: extend ts_config set locking

> 

> [...]


Here is the summary with links:
  - [net-next,1/8] ionic: fix up a couple of code style nits
    https://git.kernel.org/netdev/net-next/c/33c252e1ba8b
  - [net-next,2/8] ionic: remove unnecessary compat ifdef
    https://git.kernel.org/netdev/net-next/c/e1edcc966ae8
  - [net-next,3/8] ionic: check for valid tx_mode on SKBTX_HW_TSTAMP xmit
    https://git.kernel.org/netdev/net-next/c/e2ce148e948e
  - [net-next,4/8] ionic: add SKBTX_IN_PROGRESS
    https://git.kernel.org/netdev/net-next/c/bd7856bcd498
  - [net-next,5/8] ionic: re-start ptp after queues up
    https://git.kernel.org/netdev/net-next/c/51117874554d
  - [net-next,6/8] ionic: ignore EBUSY on queue start
    https://git.kernel.org/netdev/net-next/c/99b5bea04f0f
  - [net-next,7/8] ionic: add ts_config replay
    https://git.kernel.org/netdev/net-next/c/829600ce5e4e
  - [net-next,8/8] ionic: extend ts_config set locking
    https://git.kernel.org/netdev/net-next/c/f3318099658e

You are awesome, thank you!
--
Deet-doot-dot, I am a bot.
https://korg.docs.kernel.org/patchwork/pwbot.html
Richard Cochran April 11, 2021, 3:38 p.m. UTC | #2
On Wed, Apr 07, 2021 at 04:19:53PM -0700, Shannon Nelson wrote:
> A few little changes after review comments and

> additional internal testing.


This series is a delta against the previously posted one.  Please
follow the process by re-basing your changes into the original series,
putting a "v2" into the Subject line, and adding a brief change log
into the cover letter.

Thanks,
Richard
Shannon Nelson April 12, 2021, 4:33 p.m. UTC | #3
On 4/11/21 8:38 AM, Richard Cochran wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 07, 2021 at 04:19:53PM -0700, Shannon Nelson wrote:

>> A few little changes after review comments and

>> additional internal testing.

> This series is a delta against the previously posted one.  Please

> follow the process by re-basing your changes into the original series,

> putting a "v2" into the Subject line, and adding a brief change log

> into the cover letter.

>

> Thanks,

> Richard


If the original patches hadn't already been pulled into net-next, this 
is what I would have done.  My understanding is that once the patches 
have been pulled into the repo that we need to do delta patches, not new 
versions of the same patch, as folks don't normally like changing 
published tree history.

sln
Richard Cochran April 13, 2021, 1:25 a.m. UTC | #4
On Mon, Apr 12, 2021 at 09:33:29AM -0700, Shannon Nelson wrote:
> If the original patches hadn't already been pulled into net-next, this is

> what I would have done.  My understanding is that once the patches have been

> pulled into the repo that we need to do delta patches, not new versions of

> the same patch, as folks don't normally like changing published tree

> history.


Oh, the series you posted on April 1 was merged on April 2 without any
review.  That seems surprising to me, but perhaps the development
tempo has increased.

Wow, and this delta series was also:

posted	Date: Wed,  7 Apr 2021 16:19:53 -0700
merged	Date: Thu, 08 Apr 2021 20:30:28 +0000

That is a pretty good turn around time, less that 24 hours!

Oh well, too late to add my Acked-by.

Thanks,
Richard