Hi Andrew and Jakub, On Wed, Mar 26, 2025 at 1:29 PM Andrew Lunn <andrew@xxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Wed, Mar 26, 2025 at 06:21:48AM -0700, Jakub Kicinski wrote: > > On Wed, 26 Mar 2025 12:52:17 +0000 Lad, Prabhakar wrote: > > > This patch series has been marked as "Changes Requested" on Patchwork, > > > but there were no review comments on the series. If the status was > > > marked as "Changes Requested" due to build failures reported by the > > > kernel bots, I’d like to clarify that the failure was caused by a > > > patch dependency, which has now been merged into net-next [0]. As a > > > result, this series should now build successfully on net-next. > > > > > > Please let me know if you would like me to resend the series. > > > > Don't send patches which can't be immediately merged. > > You will have to repost, obviously, and after the merge window. > Thanks, I'll resend the patches after the merge window. > Just expanding on that a bit. We do more than build testing of > patches. Some runtime testing is also performed. So if they failed to > build, they cannot be fully tested. Hence the request to only post > patches which build. > Thanks for the clarification. > You can however send the patches as RFC, so we know to ignore them for > merging. > I'll make sure to send such patches as RFC in the future to indicate that they are not ready for merging. Thanks for the clarification! Cheers, Prabhakar
