Re: [PATCH v3 net] net: phylink: add missing supported link modes for the fixed-link

[Jakub Kicinski]

On Wed, 19 Nov 2025 16:06:03 +0000 Russell King (Oracle) wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 19, 2025 at 01:22:17AM +0000, Wei Fang wrote:
> > I'm sorry, I was in a rush to send out the v3 patch, and I hadn't received
> > your Reviewed-by tag at that time, so the tag was not added. When I saw
> > that you gave the Review-by in v2, I realized that I could no longer add it
> > to v3, so I replied that I had sent v3, hoping that you could resend your
> > Reviewed-by tag.
> > 
> > If you don't mind, I will refine the commit message as Andrew suggested
> > and add your Revived-by tag from v2 to v4. I apologize again.  
> 
> I also question the need to refine the commit message this much. One
> of the points of lore.kernel.org is that it provides a stable source
> for mailing list archives. We use URLs to that site extensively in
> the kernel development process - e.g. it's recommended to use it in
> Closes: tags, and to reference discussion from commit messages. If
> I look at the number of times lore.kernel.org has been mentioned in
> commit messages since 6.17, it comes out at around 5700 to date.
> Looking back to 6.16, it's about 13000.
> 
> So, lore.kernel.org is already an insanely valuable resource to the
> kernel community, and the loss of it would result in a lot of
> context being lost.
> 
> We have had problems with other sites - lkml.org used to be the
> popular site, but that became unreliable and stuff broke. However,
> the difference is that lore.kernel.org is maintained by the same
> people who look after the rest of the kernel.org infrastructure.
> 
> Moreover, using lore.kernel.org is encouraged when one wishes to
> link to discussion. See "Linking to list discussions from commits"
> at the bottom of https://www.kernel.org/lore.html
> 
> So, I think there was no need to go through v3, inflating the commit
> message, and end up in this situation.
> 
> Every time a patch gets reposted, the netdev cycle (as far as the
> netdev maintainers are concerned) restarts, and it means a multi-day
> delay before the change gets committed. As things stand, this is
> likely to miss tomorrow's linux-net tree submission, which is
> highly likely to be the last one before 6.18 is released. So we're
> not going to get this fixed before the final 6.18 now. And for
> what value? None as far as I can see. The patch was ready at v2.

We would have also avoided a lot of wasted time here if the authors
just mentioned in the discussion on v2 that v3 is out :|

Let me fix up the Link tag here and apply this so we can move on.