From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mga03.intel.com (mga03.intel.com [134.134.136.65]) (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 23EC01FAC for ; Thu, 23 Jun 2022 23:19:43 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=intel.com; i=@intel.com; q=dns/txt; s=Intel; t=1656026384; x=1687562384; h=date:from:to:subject:message-id:mime-version; bh=wFALJ5J/RTwzCV1qDIWBompLmZZD1dDHcgmVLkLmFxw=; b=dwHoiy/4nqHrtVLkoeitsObhFvEIT73AHwrdUnjjZ8cRcJTIbmubTBdN gmuvmoTaBwzZp+oKOY6ywzzLWkIc9cPdIpIsW8w2nWWBb3/Cj719MSWhy vH1bqRjpmOa5CxDfBnMvq7tSiU42dtrwRu18Hm8oGIlnPcPyQ5AUlqaA1 Q5ZUG0wfRIV2sBROSNVoDgedxJY35RHsJMtmZyFtX8+TCH6LcfMXFElYG TUatvV8Tl1h8b8oHbK9UemiPP1u16VtlZDfMGKsUn1U3e6oIvTrfReOVU vAvMzfrIAuq6B7mOlCwCHMDlUt816Ab7GEGXKQ4QAk7UM2g73FHkJcz3s g==; X-IronPort-AV: E=McAfee;i="6400,9594,10387"; a="281948394" X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.92,217,1650956400"; d="scan'208";a="281948394" Received: from fmsmga002.fm.intel.com ([10.253.24.26]) by orsmga103.jf.intel.com with ESMTP/TLS/ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 23 Jun 2022 16:19:43 -0700 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.92,217,1650956400"; d="scan'208";a="691259749" Received: from jngertso-mobl1.amr.corp.intel.com ([10.212.159.56]) by fmsmga002-auth.fm.intel.com with ESMTP/TLS/ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 23 Jun 2022 16:19:43 -0700 Date: Thu, 23 Jun 2022 16:19:42 -0700 (PDT) From: Mat Martineau To: Matthieu Baerts , Geliang Tang , mptcp@lists.linux.dev Subject: Should the MIB_RMSUBFLOW commit go to -net? Message-ID: Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: mptcp@lists.linux.dev List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset=US-ASCII I was preparing the patches we had agreed to be ready for net-next in the meeting today: - [f1eb3f2cb4d2] mptcp: update MIB_RMSUBFLOW in cmd_sf_destroy (Geliang Tang) - [f3c5dde10031] selftests: mptcp: userspace pm address tests (Geliang Tang) - [92378ff55152] selftests: mptcp: userspace pm subflow tests (Geliang Tang) - [1908a4ccaa2c] selftests: mptcp: avoid Terminated messages in userspace_pm (Geliang Tang) - [bac5548c7c47] selftests: mptcp: update pm_nl_ctl usage header (Geliang Tang) I think the selftest commits are definitely best for net-next. But for the first one ("mptcp: update MIB_RMSUBFLOW in cmd_sf_destroy"), should we add Fixes: 702c2f646d42 ("mptcp: netlink: allow userspace-driven subflow establishment") and include that in a patch set for -net? Seems like it would be good to improve the MIB accuracy with the userspace PM in 5.19. Link to commit in patchwork: https://patchwork.kernel.org/project/mptcp/patch/723d61d82730b996132925686b43f9c3c79bc747.1655355422.git.geliang.tang@suse.com/ If that patch goes to -net, it would also require waiting until the next net/net-next sync before sending the selftest patches listed above. -- Mat Martineau Intel