[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20220610111607.38b003e1@kernel.org>
Date: Fri, 10 Jun 2022 11:16:07 -0700
From: Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>
To: Mat Martineau <mathew.j.martineau@...ux.intel.com>
Cc: netdev@...r.kernel.org, Ossama Othman <ossama.othman@...el.com>,
davem@...emloft.net, pabeni@...hat.com, edumazet@...gle.com,
matthieu.baerts@...sares.net, mptcp@...ts.linux.dev
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next 1/2] mptcp: fix conflict with <netinet/in.h>
On Fri, 10 Jun 2022 11:00:28 -0700 (PDT) Mat Martineau wrote:
> This is a minor "fix" to be sure, which I thought did not meet the bar for
> net and therefore submitted for net-next. It's not prep for another
> change, it's something Ossama and I noticed when doing code review for a
> userspace program that included the header. There's no problem with kernel
> compilation, and there's also no issue if the userspace program happens to
> include netinet/in.h before linux/mptcp.h
>
>
> If my threshold for the net branch is too high, I have no objection to
> having this patch applied there and will recalibrate :)
>
> Do you prefer to have no Fixes: tags in net-next, or did that just seem
> ambiguous in this case?
The important point is that the middle ground of marking things as fixes
and at the same time putting them in -next, to still get them
backported but with an extended settling time -- that middle ground
does not exist.
If we look at the patch from the "do we want it backported or not"
perspective I think the answer is yes, hence I'd lean towards net.
If you think it doesn't matter enough for backport - we can drop the
fixes tag and go with net-next. Unfortunately I don't have enough
direct experience to tell how annoying this will be to the user space.
netinet/in.h vs linux/in.h is a mess :(
Powered by blists - more mailing lists