Re: [Intel-wired-lan] [PATCH net v2 0/2] Improvements for default VSI filter handling

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

On 7/4/2022 4:23 AM, Wilczynski, Michal wrote:
> On 7/1/2022 11:01 PM, Tony Nguyen wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 7/1/2022 8:17 AM, Michal Wilczynski wrote:
>>> Currently when vf-true-promisc-support private flag is set to false, 
>>> default VSI
>>> switch filter is used instead of a proper promiscuous one. 
>>> Unfortunately flow for
>>> default VSI is a bit different, which leads to improper behavior like 
>>> not being
>>> able to enable promisc mode on multiple VF's, or filter not being 
>>> removed in
>>> 'trust off' flow.
>>>
>>> v2:
>>> - Changed net-next to net, since this can be treated as a bug fixes
>>
>> I think I may have been unclear on my previous question regarding 
>> this. Patch 1 looks like improvement for handling so net-next seems 
>> the right target for it. Patch 2 seems like it's resolving a bug which 
>> is why I was asking why that wasn't going to net.
>>
>> Also, for future reference, if the patch is going to net, you need to 
>> add a Fixes: tag [1] to the patch(es).
>>
>> [1] 
>> https://www.kernel.org/doc/html/latest/process/submitting-patches.html#describe-your-changes 
>>
> 
> 
> Hi, my understanding was that a patchset has to go either to net or 
> net-next, I would have to split this patch series to two patches, one 
> for net, one for net-next.

Yes, this is what I had in mind...

> But I'm not really willing to to that, cause 
> they are kind of close together and both of those patches actually fix 
> bugs.
> 
> I was under impression that those changes were a bit too much code 
> changes for net, that's why I chose net-next.

As a series, I agree, this is to large for net. If they have to go 
together, then net-next would be the better choice. I'll go ahead and 
apply this to next-queue then.
_______________________________________________
Intel-wired-lan mailing list
Intel-wired-lan@osuosl.org
https://lists.osuosl.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-wired-lan