[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20201123084243.423b23a4@kicinski-fedora-pc1c0hjn.dhcp.thefacebook.com>
Date: Mon, 23 Nov 2020 08:42:43 -0800
From: Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>
To: "Ramsay, Lincoln" <Lincoln.Ramsay@...i.com>
Cc: Florian Westphal <fw@...len.de>,
Igor Russkikh <irusskikh@...vell.com>,
"David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
"netdev@...r.kernel.org" <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
Dmitry Bogdanov <dbogdanov@...vell.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4] aquantia: Remove the build_skb path
On Sun, 22 Nov 2020 22:36:22 +0000 Ramsay, Lincoln wrote:
> > (Next time please include in the subject the tree that you're targetting
> > the patch)
>
> I guess you mean like [PATCH master v5] ? Should I be targeting
> something other than the master branch on the main git repo?
> (https://github.com/torvalds/linux.git)
In this case the patch will be merged into the networking tree, and
then travel downstream to Linus. So you want to target this tree:
https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/netdev/net.git/
IOW [PATCH net v5].
> > please add a From: line at the beginning of the mail which matches
> > the signoff (or use git-send-email, it'll get it right).
>
> Sure.
>
> > Ah, one more thing, this is the correct fixes tag, right?
> > Fixes: 018423e90bee ("net: ethernet: aquantia: Add ring support code")
> > Please add it right before the signoff line.
>
> I didn't quite understand this header... but yeah, I guess that's the
> commit that adds the fast path I am removing.
Yup, it points to the oldest revision of the code where the bug is
present. In your case oldest revision where:
When performing IPv6 forwarding, there is an expectation that SKBs
will have some headroom. When forwarding a packet from the aquantia
driver, this does not always happen, triggering a kernel warning.
> > > Align continuations of the lines under '(' like:
> >
> > I am only changing the leading indent. Am I still expected to satisfy the patch checker?
> >
> > The current patch is very clear about what is happening if you do a diff -w but if I start
> > changing other things to satisfy the checker, that goes away.
>
> Some of the patch checker complaints are only leading whitespace
> (obviously not a problem for diff -w), but 2 of them involve actual
> changes (changing , to ; and moving the first argument from the line
> below to the line above).
I don't think it'll make a huge difference for the review-ability of
this change to heed checkpatch's warnings here.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists