Re: [Intel-wired-lan] [PATCH iwl v1 0/5] igc: TX timestamping fixes

[Tony Nguyen <anthony.l.nguyen@intel.com>]

On 5/4/2023 4:52 PM, Vinicius Costa Gomes wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> Changes from the "for-next-queue" version:
>   - As this is intended for the iwl/net-queue tree, removed adding
>     support for adding the "extra" tstamp registers;
>   - Added "Fixes:" tags to the appropriate patches (Vladimir Oltean);

In most cases, net patches should have Fixes: tags to them. Patches 3 
and 5 don't have them and it seems like it would be applicable to them.

Patch 4 seems more like an improvement than a bug fix? If so, -next 
would seem a better path for that patch. Based on the 'for-next-queue 
version' link, there are still some patches remaining that will go 
through -next? Perhaps this can go with them.

>   - Improved the check to catch the case that the skb has the
>     SKBTX_HW_TSTAMP flag, but TX timestamping is not enabled (Vladimir
>     Oltean);
>   - Ony check for timestamping timeouts if TX timestamping is enabled
>     (Vladimir Oltean);
> 
> for-next-queue version link:
> https://lore.kernel.org/intel-wired-lan/20230228054534.1093483-1-vinicius.gomes@intel.com/

...

> BTW: I hope this is the correct usage of the "iwl" subject prefix.

If you could also add -net|-next for the (eventual) target tree
i.e.
     net : iwl-net
     net-next : iwl-next

in this case 'iwl-net'

Thanks,
Tony
_______________________________________________
Intel-wired-lan mailing list
Intel-wired-lan@osuosl.org
https://lists.osuosl.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-wired-lan