[PATCH 0/4] staging: fsl-mc: dpio: add dpseci dependencies

[Greg Kroah-Hartman]

On Fri, Sep 01, 2017 at 08:14:16AM +0000, Horia Geantă wrote:
> On 8/31/2017 7:20 PM, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
> > On Wed, Aug 30, 2017 at 01:41:58PM +0300, Horia Geantă wrote:
> >> This patch set adds support for functionalities needed by the upcoming
> >> dpseci (Data Path SEC Interface) object device driver:
> >> -Frame List Entries (FLEs)
> >> -Congestion State Change Notifications (CSCNs)
> >> -Order Preservation
> >>
> >> An RFC has been previously submitted:
> >> https://www.mail-archive.com/linux-crypto@vger.kernel.org/msg27290.html
> >> and crypto-specific (dpseci) patches have been ack-ed.
> >>
> >> I am resending the dpio dependencies separately (patches 1-4 in the RFC)
> >> for inclusion in the staging tree.
> > 
> > I'd rather see some users of the new code before I add the logic to the
> > kernel.  We don't add code that isn't used...
> > 
> The user is the DPAA2 crypto engine - RFC patches 5-9 (link above),

RFC patches mean that the submitter doesn't think they should be merged,
so why should I?  :)

> I've split the RFC patch set, since:
> -crypto-specific patches (5-9) received the ack from maintainer (Herbert Xu)
> -DPIO dependencies (staging tree), i.e. patches 1-4, received no
> attention -> hence sending them separately
> 
> I am open to suggestions on how to go with a patch set that is touching
> the staging and crypto trees.

If they have an ack already, and are dependant on these patches, then
send them all at once.

But again, I really want to see this code out of staging before adding
new functionality, like this.  Please work on that first.

And yes, I have said I need to review the code to get it out of staging,
but if you could do that as well, and give your ack/reviewed by to the
patch that does the move, that would help...

thanks,

greg k-h