From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from smtp.kernel.org (aws-us-west-2-korg-mail-alma10-1.taild15c8.ts.net [100.103.45.18]) (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 6EC5349E5FF; Thu, 15 Oct 2026 07:43:40 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=100.103.45.18 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1792050222; cv=none; b=o8h/AmYaABVGtQBxgTAEUzRCW+iERCShE8vwBDYwEzrG0hdrlcIKb+sau2+3NigL+5fQ+lcuNTiLskyBMX9EnirWeuV/YBtWik6OO/bDYj5Vpc+4iK4r6J1j5YDRi+8iDBL++qWi0DBmZdP8Sv8mcC/TCRv+Mpl8O5QiFRKMsyU= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1792050222; c=relaxed/simple; bh=x8GQ9TqAFu5driuvo38kqzYt3n324pebOlaNmEELI+s=; h=From:To:Cc:Subject:Date:Message-ID:In-Reply-To:References: Content-Type:MIME-Version; b=Q9mh1fYkN/uE9cdFw7YfUDV+KzG7deScYt8xsqa60gvAovAm6wTvUgck/RHAKUY/bLsOUBmYHXu5c98Sh4nTBYp+NQhLWkCC8uF3r4HzcgVdc/Gxd/r7I7wf/h+6E+Rot1+yFw7xmBY4FoqP62EVmpmS5OcfhyLtiIO89JeLVr4= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=kernel.org header.i=@kernel.org header.b=avxfbTMA; arc=none smtp.client-ip=100.103.45.18 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=kernel.org header.i=@kernel.org header.b="avxfbTMA" Received: by smtp.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id E7BD61F000C4; Thu, 15 Oct 2026 07:43:38 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=kernel.org; s=k20260515; t=1792050219; bh=PJRu7W6/Or1we5Gv3BgoLEtby0D0Y0UGgfjBHfRc5+k=; h=From:To:Cc:Subject:Date:In-Reply-To:References; b=avxfbTMANEBfzVLsIqD7E/Dd14H2HWAqfQi/N1vosEjCv0S/PveXsz5hsLUSNa6D8 NzZUlZjDeYBAz/mZyBmTjF4nr3xrGeyPIcb+HgD8eDnvrSWLaWERdaBa/J0RxbQfsM S4J2hns8JpbaQmo3Wo3987UdC18YtCsbO5g5/z5gPwP1Va3yaqj3MmRgY1bI9oxt87 Pc2n+8lujnrKYCSb2u201lQbONNahe8dsQxdGR8NNSdXkHyUnyvXE/SHdvOw5V3VNa Yt0vlTp1A/IGOnMrq0TITgqJbSgIn8PhuE4ncqJWp9jI+vAEpxJAjj//tICwL3Nkch MpqyX1ybZS82w== From: netdev-bot+sinfo@kernel.org To: Octavian Purdila Cc: Eric Dumazet , Neal Cardwell , Kuniyuki Iwashima , "David S . Miller" , Jakub Kicinski , Paolo Abeni , Simon Horman , Shuah Khan , Willem de Bruijn , Soheil Hassas Yeganeh , Wei Wang , Shakeel Butt , netdev@vger.kernel.org, linux-kselftest@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH net 0/2] tcp: clamp return value of tcp_wmem_schedule() to non-negative Date: Thu, 15 Oct 2026 07:43:38 +0000 Message-ID: <179205021846.408196.14808616314279740107@kernel.org> In-Reply-To: <20261015073736.2944215-1-tavip@google.com> References: <20261015073736.2944215-1-tavip@google.com> Auto-Submitted: auto-generated Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: netdev@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Hi! This is an automated message. This series looks like a fix, but its commit messages seem to be missing some information: - How the issue was discovered, e.g. hit in production, hit during development, syzbot report, manual code inspection, LLM or static analysis tool scan. Please do not repost the series just to address the above. Instead, reply to this email with the missing information, so that reviewers can take it into account. If the series needs another revision for other reasons, please include the information in the commit messages then. The evaluation is done by an LLM so it may be wrong, if you think that is the case please reply and explain.