[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20241205164708.319cbb92@kernel.org>
Date: Thu, 5 Dec 2024 16:47:08 -0800
From: Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>
To: Nikita Yushchenko <nikita.yoush@...entembedded.com>
Cc: Yoshihiro Shimoda <yoshihiro.shimoda.uh@...esas.com>, Andrew Lunn
<andrew@...n.ch>, "David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>, Eric Dumazet
<edumazet@...gle.com>, Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com>, Geert Uytterhoeven
<geert+renesas@...der.be>, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
linux-renesas-soc@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Michael
Dege <michael.dege@...esas.com>, Christian Mardmoeller
<christian.mardmoeller@...esas.com>, Dennis Ostermann
<dennis.ostermann@...esas.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/5] net: renesas: rswitch: fix leaked pointer on error
path
On Thu, 5 Dec 2024 08:46:15 +0500 Nikita Yushchenko wrote:
> > I agree with Jake that patches 4 and 5 don't seem like obvious fixes,
> > would be great if you could post them as separate series, they need to
> > go to a different tree.
>
> Ok, will repost.
>
> Shall I use [PATCH net] for all?
> Or [PATCH] for fixes and [PATCH net] for improvements?
Ideally [PATCH net] for fixes, [PATCH net-next] for improvements.
But it's not a big deal as long as they are separated.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists