Re: [PATCH net 2/2 repost2] net/sched: sch_teql: keep skb->dev consistent on the arp-queue path

[Simon Horman <horms@kernel.org>]

On Tue, Oct 27, 2026 at 04:04:34AM -0400, Jamal Hadi Salim wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 27, 2026 at 3:44 AM Jamal Hadi Salim <jhs@mojatatu.com> wrote:
> >
> > On Tue, Oct 27, 2026 at 3:25 AM Jamal Hadi Salim <jhs@mojatatu.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > On Mon, Oct 26, 2026 at 8:46 PM Jakub Kicinski <kuba@kernel.org> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > On Mon, 26 Oct 2026 19:51:33 -0400 Jamal Hadi Salim wrote:
> > > > > > This is an AI-generated review of your patch. The human sending this
> > > > > > email says "Hi Jamal, passing this on for your consideration as it
> > > > > > seems to have got stuck somewhere."
> > > > >
> > > > > There was nothing wrong with the headers this time - so not sure what
> > > > > is going on. A bit frustrating.
> > > >
> > > > It is frustrating, you are the only one with these issues.
> > > > Patch 2 is posted in reply to patch 1. IDK what else is wrong.
> > > >
> > >
> > > Let me send a repost3 - will take the opportunity to pedantically fix
> > > the commit message (no code change).
> >
> > BTW, checking i see the threading was:
> >      0/2 cover  (root)
> >        1/2      (reply to 0/2)
> >          2/2    (reply to 1/2)
> >
> > I checked other postings that didnt have issues and it was fine. I
> > also found the approach
> >    0/2 cover  (root)
> >        1/2      (reply to 0/2)
> >         2/2    (reply to 0/2)
> >
> 
> And for repost3:
> - 0/2 (root)
>      1/2  In-Reply-To/References: 0/2
>      2/2  In-Reply-To: 1/2; References: 0/2 + 1/2
> 
> I am sticking to this approach going forward.

Hi Jamal,

It's unclear to me if the threading relates to why the NIPA-Sashiko review
of this patch-set didn't propagate to the ML.  But I would suggest that
however b4 handles threading would be a good approach top copy.