netdev - Re: [PATCH v10 0/2] bnx2x: Fix error recovering in switch configuration

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]

Message-ID: <19ebb8a4-fbb8-442e-9fae-95890355a110@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Date: Thu, 15 Feb 2024 10:08:16 -0600
From: Thinh Tran <thinhtr@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
To: Jacob Keller <jacob.e.keller@...el.com>, kuba@...nel.org
Cc: netdev@...r.kernel.org, davem@...emloft.net, manishc@...vell.com,
        pabeni@...hat.com, skalluru@...vell.com, simon.horman@...igine.com,
        edumazet@...gle.com, VENKATA.SAI.DUGGI@....com, drc@...ux.vnet.ibm.com,
        abdhalee@...ibm.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v10 0/2] bnx2x: Fix error recovering in switch
 configuration


Thank you for the feed back
On 2/14/2024 2:48 PM, Jacob Keller wrote:
> 
> The subject didn't clearly identify net-next or net... but the contents
> of the series seem to be one bug fix which would make sense to go to net
> (unless the bug itself isn't in net yet?) and one refactor that doesn't
> seem reasonable to go to net..

I agree that the refactor patch does not need to be included in the 
'net' tree.
Should the patches be resubmitted separately, with one targeted for 
'net' and the other for 'net-next'? Your advice on the best approach 
would be greatly appreciated.

Thanks
Thinh Tran