Subject: Re: [PATCH for-next 2/2] net/mlx5: Update mlx5_ifc hardware features

From: Leon Romanovsky <leon-2ukJVAZIZ/[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 12 Apr 2016 09:01:17 +0300

On Tue, Apr 12, 2016 at 08:36:21AM +0300, Or Gerlitz wrote:
> Conflicts happens @ all times, life.
> 

...

> 
> I understand your desire to get it down to zero, but it's not gonna
> work, pick another target.

Maybe you are right and the time will show, but now we (Saeed, Matan and me)
are trying hard to achieve this goal.

> 
> For example, the networking community has a fairly large rc activity
> (I would say 10-20x
> vs rdma), so when Dave does his "merge-rebases" for net-next over net
> and linus tree
> (4-5 times in a release), he has to this way or another solve
> conflicts, yes! ditto for
> Linus during merge windows and to some extent in rc times too.

I don't see any harm in our desire to decrease work overhead from these
busy people.

> 
> > It won't help to anyone to split this commit to more than one patch.
> 
> The commit change-log should make it clear what this is about, and it doesn't.
> If you believe in something, state that clear, be precise.

I agree.

> 
> As Saeed admitted the shared code in the commit spans maybe 2% of it.
> 
> The 1st commit deals with a field which is not used in the driver,
> this is a cleanup
> that you can do in rc (net) patch (remove the field all together) and
> overall, w.o seeing

I don't agree with your point that cleanup should go to RC.

> the down-stream patches that depend on the newly introduced fields,
> how do you know there aren't such (unused) bits in the 2nd commit?

No, I don't know in advance, but the truth is that it doesn't bother
anyone, because we are exposing our internal HW to kernel clients and
doing it with minimal impact on the maintainers.