netdev - Re: [PATCH] net/mlx5: Remove the repeated declaration

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Wed, 8 Dec 2021 10:59:45 +0200
From:   Leon Romanovsky <leon@...nel.org>
To:     Shaokun Zhang <zhangshaokun@...ilicon.com>
Cc:     netdev@...r.kernel.org, linux-rdma@...r.kernel.org,
        Saeed Mahameed <saeedm@...dia.com>,
        "David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
        Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] net/mlx5: Remove the repeated declaration

On Wed, Dec 08, 2021 at 09:27:37AM +0800, Shaokun Zhang wrote:
> Hi Leon,
> 
> On 2021/12/7 20:40, Leon Romanovsky wrote:
> > On Tue, Dec 07, 2021 at 08:35:15PM +0800, Shaokun Zhang wrote:
> >> Function 'mlx5_esw_vport_match_metadata_supported' and
> >> 'mlx5_esw_offloads_vport_metadata_set' are declared twice, so remove
> >> the repeated declaration and blank line.
> >>
> >> Cc: Saeed Mahameed <saeedm@...dia.com>
> >> Cc: Leon Romanovsky <leon@...nel.org>
> >> Cc: "David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>
> >> Cc: Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>
> >> Signed-off-by: Shaokun Zhang <zhangshaokun@...ilicon.com>
> >> ---
> >>  drivers/net/ethernet/mellanox/mlx5/core/eswitch.h | 3 ---
> >>  1 file changed, 3 deletions(-)
> >>
> > 
> > Fixes: 4f4edcc2b84f ("net/mlx5: E-Switch, Add ovs internal port mapping to metadata support")
> > 
> 
> Shall we need this tag since it is trivial cleanup patch?

I don't know about netdev policy about Fixes line.

IMHO, it should be always when the bug is fixed.

Thansk

> 
> > Thanks,
> > Reviewed-by: Leon Romanovsky <leonro@...dia.com>
> 
> Thanks your reply.
> 
> > .
> >