netdev - Re: [PATCH net-next 10/12] net/mlx5: DR, add support for ConnectX-8 steering

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: <1e8c075c-2fd0-4d10-887d-04a5fb15baa2@gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 15 Dec 2024 08:25:44 +0200
From: Tariq Toukan <ttoukan.linux@...il.com>
To: Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>
Cc: Simon Horman <horms@...nel.org>, Tariq Toukan <tariqt@...dia.com>,
 "David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>, Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com>,
 Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>, Andrew Lunn <andrew+netdev@...n.ch>,
 Leon Romanovsky <leonro@...dia.com>, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
 Saeed Mahameed <saeedm@...dia.com>, Gal Pressman <gal@...dia.com>,
 linux-rdma@...r.kernel.org, Itamar Gozlan <igozlan@...dia.com>,
 Yevgeny Kliteynik <kliteyn@...dia.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next 10/12] net/mlx5: DR, add support for ConnectX-8
 steering

On 13/12/2024 3:11, Jakub Kicinski wrote:
> On Thu, 12 Dec 2024 20:31:30 +0200 Tariq Toukan wrote:
>> It requires pulling 4 IFC patches that were applied to
>> mlx5-next:
>> https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/mellanox/linux.git/log/?h=mlx5-next
> 
> What do you expect we'll do with this series?
> 
> If you expect it to be set to Awaiting Upstream - could you make sure
> that the cover letter has "mlx5-next" in the subject? That will makes
> it easier to automate in patchwork.
> 

The relevant patches have mlx5-next in their topic.
Should the cover letter as well?
What about other non-IFC patches, keep them with net-next?

> If you expect the series to be applied / merged - LMK, I can try
> to explain why that's impossible..

The motivation is to avoid potential conflicts with rdma trees.
AFAIK this is the agreed practice and is being followed for some time...

If not, what's the suggested procedure then?
How do you suggest getting these IFC changes to both net and rdma trees?