linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH net-next 1/2] net: lan966x: cleanup lan966x_tc_flower_handler_control

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <883a41cc-58b2-475b-a247-b45f69c7f24b@fiberby.net>
Date: Tue, 23 Apr 2024 14:58:54 +0000
From: Asbjørn Sloth Tønnesen <ast@...erby.net>
To: Simon Horman <horms@...nel.org>
Cc: netdev@...r.kernel.org, Horatiu Vultur <horatiu.vultur@...rochip.com>,
 UNGLinuxDriver@...rochip.com, "David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
 Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>, Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>,
 Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next 1/2] net: lan966x: cleanup
 lan966x_tc_flower_handler_control_usage()

Hi Simon,

On 4/23/24 2:00 PM, Simon Horman wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 23, 2024 at 10:27:17AM +0000, Asbjørn Sloth Tønnesen wrote:
>> Define extack locally, to reduce line lengths and future users.
>>
>> Rename goto, as the error message is specific to the fragment flags.
>>
>> Only compile-tested.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Asbjørn Sloth Tønnesen <ast@...erby.net>
> 
> Hi Asbjørn,
> 
> This patch-set did not apply to net-next at the time it was posted
> (although it does now), so it will need to be reposted.

Weird, patchwork incorrectly matched up the two series. I had
rebased shortly before posting (net-next was at 077633afe07f4).

The 4 emails and their Subject, Message-ID and In-Reply-To:

Subject: [PATCH net-next 1/2] net: sparx5: flower: cleanup sparx5_tc_flower_handler_control_usage()
Message-ID: <20240423102728.228765-1-ast@...erby.net>  (A)

Subject: [PATCH net-next 2/2] net: sparx5: flower: check for unsupported control flags
Message-ID: <20240423102728.228765-2-ast@...erby.net>  (B)
In-Reply-To: <20240423102728.228765-1-ast@...erby.net> (A)

Subject: [PATCH net-next 1/2] net: lan966x: cleanup lan966x_tc_flower_handler_control_usage()
Message-ID: <20240423102720.228728-1-ast@...erby.net>  (C)

Subject: [PATCH net-next 2/2] net: lan966x: flower: check for unsupported control flags
Message-ID: <20240423102720.228728-2-ast@...erby.net>  (D)
In-Reply-To: <20240423102720.228728-1-ast@...erby.net> (C)

Patchwork have two series A+D and C+B, instead of A+B and C+D.

> Also, please consider providing a cover-letter for patch-sets with
> more than one (but not just one) patch.

Sure, will do. Didn't know if it was appreciated for so small series,
anyway v2 will have more patches, after splitting this patch up.

-- 
Best regards
Asbjørn Sloth Tønnesen
Network Engineer
Fiberby - AS42541