[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <6F34BD38-F708-4D21-A9E9-23B3AB644151@intel.com>
Date: Sun, 25 Aug 2019 00:04:58 +0000
From: "Kirsher, Jeffrey T" <jeffrey.t.kirsher@...el.com>
To: David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
CC: "jakub.kicinski@...ronome.com" <jakub.kicinski@...ronome.com>,
"Ertman, David M" <david.m.ertman@...el.com>,
"netdev@...r.kernel.org" <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
"nhorman@...hat.com" <nhorman@...hat.com>,
"sassmann@...hat.com" <sassmann@...hat.com>,
"Bowers, AndrewX" <andrewx.bowers@...el.com>
Subject: Re: [net-next 07/14] ice: Rename ethtool private flag for lldp
> On Aug 24, 2019, at 16:47, David Miller <davem@...emloft.net> wrote:
>
> From: Jakub Kicinski <jakub.kicinski@...ronome.com>
> Date: Fri, 23 Aug 2019 18:31:11 -0700
>
>>> On Fri, 23 Aug 2019 16:37:43 -0700, Jeff Kirsher wrote:
>>> From: Dave Ertman <david.m.ertman@...el.com>
>>>
>>> The current flag name of "enable-fw-lldp" is a bit cumbersome.
>>>
>>> Change priv-flag name to "fw-lldp-agent" with a value of on or
>>> off. This is more straight-forward in meaning.
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Dave Ertman <david.m.ertman@...el.com>
>>> Tested-by: Andrew Bowers <andrewx.bowers@...el.com>
>>> Signed-off-by: Jeff Kirsher <jeffrey.t.kirsher@...el.com>
>>
>> Just flagging this for Dave, it was introduced in v5.2 by:
>
> So should we backport the rename into 'net'? Is this a bug fix or just
> making life easier for people?
IMHO, no need to backport.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists