linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] selftests: mptcp: remove duplicate include in mptcp

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Fri, 10 Dec 2021 16:36:06 +0100
From:   Matthieu Baerts <matthieu.baerts@...sares.net>
To:     Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>
Cc:     cgel.zte@...il.com, mathew.j.martineau@...ux.intel.com,
        davem@...emloft.net, shuah@...nel.org, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
        mptcp@...ts.linux.dev, linux-kselftest@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Ye Guojin <ye.guojin@....com.cn>,
        ZealRobot <zealci@....com.cn>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] selftests: mptcp: remove duplicate include in mptcp_inq.c

Hi Jakub,

On 10/12/2021 15:56, Jakub Kicinski wrote:
> On Fri, 10 Dec 2021 06:54:37 -0800 Jakub Kicinski wrote:
>> On Fri, 10 Dec 2021 10:58:27 +0100 Matthieu Baerts wrote:
>>> Hi Ye,
>>>
>>> On 10/12/2021 08:14, cgel.zte@...il.com wrote:  
>>>> From: Ye Guojin <ye.guojin@....com.cn>
>>>>
>>>> 'sys/ioctl.h' included in 'mptcp_inq.c' is duplicated.    
>>>
>>> Good catch, the modification looks good to me:
>>>
>>> Reviewed-by: Matthieu Baerts <matthieu.baerts@...sares.net>
>>>
>>>
>>> This patch is for "net-next" tree as it fixes an issue introduced by a
>>> patch only in this tree:
>>>
>>> Fixes: b51880568f20 ("selftests: mptcp: add inq test case")
>>>
>>> Regarding the commit message, please next time include the Fixes tag and
>>> mention for which tree it is for in the FAQ [1], e.g. [PATCH net-next].
>>>
>>>
>>> @David/Jakub: do you prefer a v2 with these modifications or is it fine
>>> to apply this small patch directly in net-next tree?  
>>
>> v1 is fine. Let me apply it right away and do the edits before I forget
>> they are needed..

Thank you!

> Actually, I take that back, let's hear from Mat, he may want to take
> the patch via his tree.

We "rebase" our tree on top of net-next every night. I think for such
small patches with no behaviour change and sent directly to netdev ML,
it is probably best to apply them directly. I can check with Mat if it
is an issue if you prefer.

I would have applied it in our MPTCP tree if we were sending PR, not to
bother you for such patches but I guess it is best not to have us
sending this patch a second time later :)

BTW, if you prefer us sending PR over batches of patches, please tell us!

Cheers,
Matt
-- 
Tessares | Belgium | Hybrid Access Solutions
www.tessares.net