From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from smtp.kernel.org (aws-us-west-2-korg-mail-1.web.codeaurora.org [10.30.226.201]) (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 7FAC9FC07 for ; Mon, 11 Dec 2023 16:51:41 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=kernel.org header.i=@kernel.org header.b="XvrINhKb" Received: by smtp.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 9D840C433C8; Mon, 11 Dec 2023 16:51:40 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=kernel.org; s=k20201202; t=1702313501; bh=jXrfnDnXSAdCkJtLjpJCKDrNg7DOIOOclITycj8SrBs=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:In-Reply-To:References:From; b=XvrINhKbpjF5SAY9B9Ur5XIGWUrWK005J4+6zhivTUVERjJN0CYBnXNG6sktJZBEa +TKtwkIzZVvPI/ygufXQWweLn+Mlqk6IeALZRk1vekCm+1e8XBBdoXTor6Yv7ivWhQ eL54cJKPGd8ozXq1KoU/98JRmzw28WQfqH+5QfPPpHimLkTDrn2qc37M5hhAd/CYgR LT1RJwRU6R4F1wu0CIRg9sztDfGXp0nQkO6lpE5eldTKmGpQmfO32z1+P/M7GeB6pF aL8ZWXSw25SVWwVnRbrBW4SgnRh5pKeQrIlqCEeUczOF1wijqzJZHLuNJgDRQirWa0 gJHZU4dYAQ6pA== Date: Mon, 11 Dec 2023 08:51:39 -0800 From: Jakub Kicinski To: Patrick Williams Cc: Ivan Mikhaylov , davem@davemloft.net, edumazet@google.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, netdev@vger.kernel.org, pabeni@redhat.com, peter@pjd.dev, sam@mendozajonas.com Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next v2 3/3] net/ncsi: Add NC-SI 1.2 Get MC MAC Address command Message-ID: <20231211085139.011f650a@kernel.org> In-Reply-To: References: <20231114160737.3209218-4-patrick@stwcx.xyz> <20231210215356.4154-1-fr0st61te@gmail.com> Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: netdev@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On Sun, 10 Dec 2023 20:50:56 -0600 Patrick Williams wrote: > Either you or I can send a "Fixes: " on this commit to improve the > handling as you're proposing. While the change is likely trivial, I > have not had any chance to test it yet, so I've not sent it up myself. > If you want to refactor the code to reduce duplication, I think that should > be an entirely separate proposal. Yes, incremental change is better.