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 PHC | |
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
| ||
|
Date: Fri, 5 Aug 2022 14:29:48 -0700 From: Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org> To: Alexandra Winter <wintera@...ux.ibm.com> Cc: Andrew Lunn <andrew@...n.ch>, David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>, netdev@...r.kernel.org, linux-s390@...r.kernel.org, Heiko Carstens <hca@...ux.ibm.com>, Thorsten Winkler <twinkler@...ux.ibm.com> Subject: Re: [PATCH net 1/2] s390/qeth: update cached link_info for ethtool On Fri, 5 Aug 2022 09:05:47 +0200 Alexandra Winter wrote: > >> Since this is for net, than yes, maybe it would be best to go with a > >> minimal patch to make your backwards around code work. But for > >> net-next, you really should fix this properly. > > > > Then again this patch doesn't look like a regression fix (and does not > > have a fixes tag). Channeling my inner Greg I'd say - fix this right and > > then worry about backports later. > This patch is a pre-req for [PATCH net 2/2] s390/qeth: use cached link_info for ethtool > 2/2 is the regression fix. > Guidance is welcome. Should I merge them into a single commit? > Or clarify in the commit message of 1/1 that this is a preparation for 2/2? Ohh, now it makes far more sense, I see. Could you please add a line to patch 1 saying that it's a pre-req for the next change, separated out for ease of review? Hopefully the backport does not get confused and pulls in both of them...
Powered by blists - more mailing lists