From: Mat Martineau <martineau@kernel.org>
To: Matthieu Baerts <matttbe@kernel.org>
Cc: MPTCP Upstream <mptcp@lists.linux.dev>, Paolo Abeni <pabeni@redhat.com>
Subject: Re: Patches for netdev (for 6.7)
Date: Mon, 23 Oct 2023 09:44:26 -0700 (PDT) [thread overview]
Message-ID: <2dea2b8e-6395-fb49-dfed-493ad538cc05@kernel.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <ee535704-52c3-48a5-9893-c195f7975e64@kernel.org>
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2368 bytes --]
On Mon, 23 Oct 2023, Matthieu Baerts wrote:
> Hi Mat,
>
> Regarding the patches we might want to send to netdev this week, I think
> all the ones for -net and net-next can go.
>
> ...
Hi Matthieu -
Thanks for summarizing the state of our trees and the net/net-next
conflicts.
> Just a few notes:
>
> In -net, 2 patches introduce conflicts with what is queued for net-next:
>
> - "selftests: mptcp: fix wait_rm_addr/sf parameters" conflicts with:
> - "selftests: mptcp: update userspace pm test helper"
> → the patch fixes the same issue but in different functions
>
> - "mptcp: userspace pm send RM_ADDR for ID 0" conflicts with:
> - "net: mptcp: rename netlink handlers to
> mptcp_pm_nl_<blah>_{doit,dumpit}"
> → the conflict is easy to fix: we want to put a function before one
> that is being renamed
>
> - "mptcp: define more local variables sk"
> → also easy to fix: one line in the context that has changed
>
> Because these fixes don't seem critical and because we are getting
> closer to have a new release, I think it might be better to send these 3
> fixes with the new feature (but keep them at the beginning of the
> series). I guess if a note is added in the cover-letter message
> explaining it is easier like that, and it is fine to delay the fixes, it
> should be OK. WDYT?
>
Ok, I agree that those -net patches are fine to go to net-next rather than
introduce the net/net-next conflict issues or delay the other series. They
will not be too delayed in getting to Linus' tree.
> Also, about the MPTCP NL YAML specs series where a v2 was needed: it
> looks OK to me, but I don't know if Paolo wants to double-check the last
> modifications from Davide before sending them. There is a conflict with
> one patch from this series and one for -net (see above). I think it
> might be better to send this YAML specs series first, then the other
> patches.
>
Yes, will send this v2 series first.
> I think Paolo's patches for net-next can be sent in parallel to Davide's
> patches.
>
While I normally try to avoid having more than one series waiting for
review, this is a unique situation with the v2 series. It should work to
set them up without any conflicts so I will try sending both (unless Paolo
says "don't do that" :) )
>
> Do you think you can send all these patches, please? :)
>
I will - have a good week!
- Mat
prev parent reply other threads:[~2023-10-23 16:44 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 2+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2023-10-23 0:12 Patches for netdev (for 6.7) Matthieu Baerts
2023-10-23 16:44 ` Mat Martineau [this message]
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=2dea2b8e-6395-fb49-dfed-493ad538cc05@kernel.org \
--to=martineau@kernel.org \
--cc=matttbe@kernel.org \
--cc=mptcp@lists.linux.dev \
--cc=pabeni@redhat.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox