From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mga09.intel.com (mga09.intel.com [134.134.136.24]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 210577A for ; Fri, 10 Jun 2022 19:59:35 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=intel.com; i=@intel.com; q=dns/txt; s=Intel; t=1654891176; x=1686427176; h=date:from:to:cc:subject:in-reply-to:message-id: references:mime-version; bh=yUqjYbg9XEfuol0E9AvETNcK/5MwJ8Do8WYSgi731to=; b=WGFCYvfhMu3xq075pOZwNnFU10JxNPYp1kepN5Hkfv3mBiezJm2E8BrQ msyf1tNF5CeObXQwjFCLOBC9K9ksDWPs3MJb7YxePFf/O+8SehIQiRF6G l07LxErYq2vy6imHYVgi7q6UcyLxSUSMJ+loxqUMFdPbo12wq5Dyq/T6w LxY2AHI/pmGRYzDPIbpwkXp8CfdLEoKIituW61aUj7BHOcoGBNVzTPJ8G sUrRJCXvA5gkg9qiw41nssxRcVBmV2USay5wAZMyA2X1QABhmOHoyroM3 6cDWIYwQHLJa46p2S3wN5ibs3CXJL5Y/XG1lTuho8E3SM7FqvYhlDhEff w==; X-IronPort-AV: E=McAfee;i="6400,9594,10374"; a="278531318" X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.91,291,1647327600"; d="scan'208";a="278531318" Received: from fmsmga005.fm.intel.com ([10.253.24.32]) by orsmga102.jf.intel.com with ESMTP/TLS/ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 10 Jun 2022 12:59:27 -0700 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.91,291,1647327600"; d="scan'208";a="909088282" Received: from efbarbud-mobl1.amr.corp.intel.com (HELO csouzax-mobl2.amr.corp.intel.com) ([10.212.104.59]) by fmsmga005-auth.fm.intel.com with ESMTP/TLS/ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 10 Jun 2022 12:59:27 -0700 Date: Fri, 10 Jun 2022 12:59:26 -0700 (PDT) From: Mat Martineau To: Jakub Kicinski cc: netdev@vger.kernel.org, Ossama Othman , davem@davemloft.net, pabeni@redhat.com, edumazet@google.com, matthieu.baerts@tessares.net, mptcp@lists.linux.dev Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next 1/2] mptcp: fix conflict with In-Reply-To: <20220610111607.38b003e1@kernel.org> Message-ID: References: <20220608191919.327705-1-mathew.j.martineau@linux.intel.com> <20220608191919.327705-2-mathew.j.martineau@linux.intel.com> <20220609225936.4cba4860@kernel.org> <20220610111607.38b003e1@kernel.org> Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: mptcp@lists.linux.dev List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed On Fri, 10 Jun 2022, Jakub Kicinski wrote: > On Fri, 10 Jun 2022 11:00:28 -0700 (PDT) Mat Martineau wrote: >> This is a minor "fix" to be sure, which I thought did not meet the bar for >> net and therefore submitted for net-next. It's not prep for another >> change, it's something Ossama and I noticed when doing code review for a >> userspace program that included the header. There's no problem with kernel >> compilation, and there's also no issue if the userspace program happens to >> include netinet/in.h before linux/mptcp.h >> >> >> If my threshold for the net branch is too high, I have no objection to >> having this patch applied there and will recalibrate :) >> >> Do you prefer to have no Fixes: tags in net-next, or did that just seem >> ambiguous in this case? > > The important point is that the middle ground of marking things as fixes > and at the same time putting them in -next, to still get them > backported but with an extended settling time -- that middle ground > does not exist. > > If we look at the patch from the "do we want it backported or not" > perspective I think the answer is yes, hence I'd lean towards net. > If you think it doesn't matter enough for backport - we can drop the > fixes tag and go with net-next. Unfortunately I don't have enough > direct experience to tell how annoying this will be to the user space. > netinet/in.h vs linux/in.h is a mess :( > By that criteria, I lean towards net too. Thanks Jakub. -- Mat Martineau Intel