[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAM_iQpWQAwD8kfV4B9EK81TWtY6ZwEUZ_DbdCnC-iF22Ch8mxQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 3 Jun 2018 11:33:25 -0700
From: Cong Wang <xiyou.wangcong@...il.com>
To: Paul Blakey <paulb@...lanox.com>
Cc: Jiri Pirko <jiri@...lanox.com>,
Jamal Hadi Salim <jhs@...atatu.com>,
David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>,
Linux Kernel Network Developers <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
Yevgeny Kliteynik <kliteyn@...lanox.com>,
Roi Dayan <roid@...lanox.com>,
Shahar Klein <shahark@...lanox.com>,
Mark Bloch <markb@...lanox.com>,
Or Gerlitz <ogerlitz@...lanox.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next 0/2] cls_flower: Various fixes
On Wed, May 30, 2018 at 1:17 AM, Paul Blakey <paulb@...lanox.com> wrote:
> Two of the fixes are for my multiple mask patch
>
> Paul Blakey (2):
> cls_flower: Fix missing free of rhashtable
> cls_flower: Fix comparing of old filter mask with new filter
Both are bug fixes and one-line fixes, so definitely should go
to -net tree and -stable tree.
I don't understand why you decide to rebase on net-next.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists