[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20230119213557.57598e8f@kernel.org>
Date: Thu, 19 Jan 2023 21:35:57 -0800
From: Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>
To: Tony Nguyen <anthony.l.nguyen@...el.com>
Cc: Bjorn Helgaas <helgaas@...nel.org>, <linux-pci@...r.kernel.org>,
Bjorn Helgaas <bhelgaas@...gle.com>, <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
<intel-wired-lan@...ts.osuosl.org>, <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Jesse Brandeburg <jesse.brandeburg@...el.com>,
Sathyanarayanan Kuppuswamy
<sathyanarayanan.kuppuswamy@...ux.intel.com>
Subject: Re: [Intel-wired-lan] [PATCH 2/9] e1000e: Remove redundant
pci_enable_pcie_error_reporting()
On Thu, 19 Jan 2023 13:31:39 -0800 Tony Nguyen wrote:
> > Thanks a million for taking a look at these, Tony!
> >
> > These driver patches are all independent and have no dependency on the
> > 1/9 PCI/AER patch. What's your opinion on merging these? Should they
> > go via netdev? Should they be squashed into a single patch that does
> > all the Intel drivers at once?
> >
> > I'm happy to squash them and/or merge them via the PCI tree, whatever
> > is easiest.
>
> Since there's no dependency, IMO, it'd make sense to go through
> Intel-wired-lan/netdev. Keeping them per driver is fine.
Ah, damn, I spammed Bjorn with the same question because email was
pooped most of the day :/ Reportedly not vger, email in general but
fool me once...
Tony, if you could take these via your tree that'd be best.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists