Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next 0/6] net: dsa: always use phylink

From: "Russell King (Oracle)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 15 Jul 2022 21:59:24 +0100

On Fri, Jul 15, 2022 at 08:17:19PM +0300, Vladimir Oltean wrote:
> Hi Russell,
> 
> On Fri, Jul 15, 2022 at 05:00:59PM +0100, Russell King (Oracle) wrote:
> > Hi,
> > 
> > This is a re-hash of the previous RFC series, this time using the
> > suggestion from Vladimir to create a swnode based fixed-link
> > specifier.
> > 
> > Most of the changes are to DSA and phylink code from the previous
> > series. I've tested on my Clearfog (which has just one Marvell DSA
> > switch) and it works there - also tested without the fixed-link
> > specified in DT.
> 
> I had some comments I wanted to leave on the previous RFC patch set
> (which in turn is essentially identical to this one, hence they still
> apply), but I held off because I thought you were waiting for some
> feedback from Andrew. Has something changed?

I've got fed up of waiting for very little feedback on patches I send.
Jakub was fully prepared to apply my v2 RFC patches after - as he saw
it - everyone that was likely to respond had responded.

The only thing that delayed them was your eventual comments about
re-working how it was being done. Yet again, posting the RFC series
created very little in the way of feedback. I'm getting to the point
of thinking its a waste of time posting RFC patches - it's counter
productive. RFC means "request for comments" but it seems that many
interpret it as "I can ignore it".

So, I'm saying sod it now. I'm posting patches that I create without
RFC tags. That means reviewers need to be on the ball if they want to
comment _before_ they get merged into net-next. Posting RFC is a total
waste of time, IMHO.

You've proven it as well with some of your comments on this series,
which I'll address in a separate reply.

-- 
RMK's Patch system: https://www.armlinux.org.uk/developer/patches/
FTTP is here! 40Mbps down 10Mbps up. Decent connectivity at last!