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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <0aa2635e-8402-467a-b684-5608ebb4490c@intel.com>
Date: Thu, 15 Feb 2024 09:29:43 -0800
From: Jacob Keller <jacob.e.keller@...el.com>
To: Thinh Tran <thinhtr@...ux.vnet.ibm.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



On 2/15/2024 8:08 AM, Thinh Tran wrote:
> 
> 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

Yep. Targeting the fix to net means it will hit the next release and can
get ported to the stable trees.

Thanks,
Jake