Re: [PATCH v3 1/3] igb: Add igb_disable_sriov in error handling

[Jeff Kirsher <jeffrey.t.kirsher@intel.com>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1607 bytes --]

On Tue, 2014-12-23 at 21:22 +0800, Jia-Ju Bai wrote:
> On 12/23/2014 07:23 PM, Sergei Shtylyov wrote:
> > Hello.
> >
> > On 12/23/2014 10:17 AM, Jia-Ju Bai wrote:
> >
> >> For linux-3.18.0
> >
> >    For the future: such words should be placed under --- tear line...
> >
> >> The driver lacks igb_disable_sriov in error handling,
> >> which should match igb_enable_sriov in igb_probe.
> >> This patch fixes this problem, and it has been tested in runtime.
> >
> >> Signed-off-by: Jia-Ju Bai <baijiaju1990@163.com>
> >> ---
> >
> >    .... here.
> >
> >>   drivers/net/ethernet/intel/igb/igb_main.c |    4 ++++
> >>   1 file changed, 4 insertions(+)
> >
> > WBR, Sergei
> >
> 
> Thanks. ^_^
> I see that most patches in netdev mailing list do not mention the linux
> kernel version, so is it necessary to write the version in the patch?
> 

No it is not.  If you were sending a patch (which has already been
accepted upstream) to the stable trees, then you would specify what
stable kernels the patch applies to.  In your case, I would not consider
your patches critical for the stable trees.

So when sending patches, you inform the maintainer (i.e. me) what tree
you want your patch applied by stating either "net" or "net-next" in the
title.  For example, this patch would be titled:

[net v3 1/3] igb: Add igb_disable_sriov in error handling

Which lets me know you want your patch applied to the "net" tree.  If it
were not a fix, then it would go into the "net-next" tree by using the
title:

[net-next v3 1/3] igb: Add igb_disable_sriov in error handling

[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 819 bytes --]