netdev - Re: [PATCH] selftests: mptcp: remove duplicate include in mptcp

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:   Fri, 10 Dec 2021 10:00:35 -0800 (PST)
From:   Mat Martineau <mathew.j.martineau@...ux.intel.com>
To:     Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>
cc:     Matthieu Baerts <matthieu.baerts@...sares.net>, cgel.zte@...il.com,
        davem@...emloft.net, shuah@...nel.org, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
        mptcp@...ts.linux.dev, linux-kselftest@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Ye Guojin <ye.guojin@....com.cn>,
        ZealRobot <zealci@....com.cn>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] selftests: mptcp: remove duplicate include in
 mptcp_inq.c

On Fri, 10 Dec 2021, Jakub Kicinski wrote:

> On Fri, 10 Dec 2021 16:36:06 +0100 Matthieu Baerts wrote:
>>> Actually, I take that back, let's hear from Mat, he may want to take
>>> the patch via his tree.
>>
>> We "rebase" our tree on top of net-next every night. I think for such
>> small patches with no behaviour change and sent directly to netdev ML,
>> it is probably best to apply them directly. I can check with Mat if it
>> is an issue if you prefer.
>
> Please do, I'm happy to apply the patch but Mat usually prefers to take
> things thru MPTCP tree.
>

Jakub -

It is ok with me if you apply this now, for the reasons Matthieu cited.

The usual division of labor between Matthieu and I as MPTCP co-maintainers 
usually has me upstreaming the patches to netdev, but I do trust 
Matthieu's judgement on sending out Reviewed-by tags and advising direct 
appliction to the netdev trees! Also, much like you & David, having offset 
timezones can be helpful.

Also appreciate your awareness of the normal patch flow for MPTCP, and 
that you're checking that we're all on the same page.


>> I would have applied it in our MPTCP tree if we were sending PR, not to
>> bother you for such patches but I guess it is best not to have us
>> sending this patch a second time later :)
>>
>> BTW, if you prefer us sending PR over batches of patches, please tell us!
>
> Small preference for patches. It's good to have the code on the ML for
> everyone to look at and mixed PR + patches are a tiny bit more clicking
> for me.
>

Good to know.


Thanks!

--
Mat Martineau
Intel