netdev - Re: [PATCH] net: au1000_eth: Mark au1000

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: <20250325024502.70a84c3f@kernel.org>
Date: Tue, 25 Mar 2025 02:45:02 -0700
From: Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>
To: Johan Korsnes <johan.korsnes@...il.com>
Cc: Michal Swiatkowski <michal.swiatkowski@...ux.intel.com>,
 netdev@...r.kernel.org, Andrew Lunn <andrew+netdev@...n.ch>, "David S.
 Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>, Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>, Paolo
 Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] net: au1000_eth: Mark au1000_ReleaseDB() static

On Mon, 24 Mar 2025 09:21:29 +0100 Johan Korsnes wrote:
> > Thanks for fixing it
> > Reviewed-by: Michal Swiatkowski <michal.swiatkowski@...ux.intel.com>
> > 
> > You didn't specify the tree (net vs net-next in [PATCH ...]). If you
> > want it to go to net you will need fixes tag, if to net-next it is fine.  
> 
> Thank you for the review. I don't mind adding fixes tags and re-submit,
> but would that be preferred in this case? Or will it just be noise for
> the maintainers?

Just noise.

Michal, when PW bot guesses the tree correctly there is no need to flag
the problem to the contributor. The tree designation makes our life
easier but not enough to deal with reposts.