[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <8eadc07055ac1c99bbc55ea10c7b98acc36dde55.camel@redhat.com>
Date: Fri, 26 Mar 2021 10:36:06 +0100
From: Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com>
To: Norman Maurer <norman.maurer@...glemail.com>,
netdev@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
davem@...emloft.net, dsahern@...nel.org
Cc: Norman Maurer <norman_maurer@...le.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] udp: Add support for getsockopt(..., ..., UDP_GRO, ...,
...)
Hello,
On Thu, 2021-03-25 at 20:56 +0100, Norman Maurer wrote:
> From: Norman Maurer <norman_maurer@...le.com>
>
> Support for UDP_GRO was added in the past but the implementation for
> getsockopt was missed which did lead to an error when we tried to
> retrieve the setting for UDP_GRO. This patch adds the missing switch
> case for UDP_GRO
>
> Fixes: e20cf8d3f1f7 ("udp: implement GRO for plain UDP sockets.")
> Signed-off-by: Norman Maurer <norman_maurer@...le.com>
The patch LGTM, but please cc the blamed commit author in when you add
a 'Fixes' tag (me in this case ;)
Also please specify a target tree, either 'net' or 'net-next', in the
patch subj. Being declared as a fix, this should target 'net'.
One thing you can do to simplifies the maintainer's life, would be post
a v2 with the correct tag (and ev. obsolete this patch in patchwork).
Side note: I personally think this is more a new feature (is adds
getsockopt support for UDP_GRO) than a fix, so I would not have added
the 'Fixes' tag and I would have targeted net-next, but it's just my
opinion.
Cheers,
Paolo
Powered by blists - more mailing lists