[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <63823ff6-9e63-6129-ce45-bf0dc95f0961@pensando.io>
Date: Thu, 19 Mar 2020 22:21:47 -0700
From: Shannon Nelson <snelson@...sando.io>
To: Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>
Cc: netdev@...r.kernel.org, davem@...emloft.net
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next 0/6] ionic error recovery fixes
On 3/19/20 8:46 PM, Jakub Kicinski wrote:
> On Thu, 19 Mar 2020 19:31:47 -0700 Shannon Nelson wrote:
>> These are a few little patches to make error recovery a little
>> more safe and successful.
> Patches looks good to me, FWIW. Thanks for dropping the controversial
> one. I think this should have been v2 since we seen most if not all of
> these.
I suppose v2 would have been okay, but that patchset was specifically
labeled as for firmware upgrade, and these are "merely" supporting
fixes. It didn't seem right to keep the firmware upgrade in the name,
yet it didn't seem right to call something with a new name 'v2'. I
suppose it would have been good to call out in the cover letter that
these were refugee patches from a previous patchset.
> I'm not sure why most of them have a Fixes tag, though. The
> AUTOSEL bot is quite likely to pull them into the stable trees once
> they land. Is this some intentional strategy on your part?
Because in my last patchset I had similar types of fixes without the
Fixes tag and got reminded that I should have the tag. These do fix
"issues in a previous commit" as suggested in the
submitting-patches.rst, so it seemed appropriate. They aren't high
priority issues, else I would have targeted them at net rather than
net-next. If accepted, they'll get there soon enough.
Meanwhile, thanks for the review time :-)
Cheers,
sln
Powered by blists - more mailing lists