[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20230213173613.67512a1e@kernel.org>
Date: Mon, 13 Feb 2023 17:36:13 -0800
From: Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>
To: Uwe Kleine-König
<u.kleine-koenig@...gutronix.de>
Cc: Larysa Zaremba <larysa.zaremba@...el.com>, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
Alexandre Torgue <alexandre.torgue@...s.st.com>,
Jose Abreu <joabreu@...opsys.com>, kernel@...gutronix.de,
Giuseppe Cavallaro <peppe.cavallaro@...com>,
linux-stm32@...md-mailman.stormreply.com,
linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] net: stmmac: Make stmmac_dvr_remove() return void
On Mon, 13 Feb 2023 17:23:33 +0100 Uwe Kleine-König wrote:
> > Code in both patches looks OK.
>
> Is this an Ack?
FWIW we encourage folks on netdev who reviewed a patch to speak up,
even if they don't feel confident enough to send a persistent tag.
> > Also, multiple patches usually require a cover letter. The code changes are
> > trivial, so maybe the best solution would be to just to squash those patches
> > together.
>
> My conclusion was a bit different: The code changes are trivial, so they
> don't require a cover letter :-)
>
> I don't care much about squashing the two patches together. I slightly
> prefer to keep the changes as two changes as the changes are orthogonal
> and one patch per thing is the usual action.
Fair enough, 2 patches are fine w/o a cover letter.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists