Message ID | 20220316121142.3142336-1-steffen.klassert@secunet.com (mailing list archive) |
---|---|
State | Accepted |
Commit | 186abea8a80b7699a05bbe6cbd661d64f887e1a0 |
Headers | show |
Series | pull request (net): ipsec 2022-03-16 | expand |
Context | Check | Description |
---|---|---|
netdev/tree_selection | success | Guessing tree name failed - patch did not apply |
On Wed, 16 Mar 2022 13:11:40 +0100 Steffen Klassert wrote: > Two last fixes for this release cycle: > > 1) Fix a kernel-info-leak in pfkey. > From Haimin Zhang. > > 2) Fix an incorrect check of the return value of ipv6_skip_exthdr. > From Sabrina Dubroca. Excellent, thank you! > Please pull or let me know if there are problems. One minor improvement to appease patchwork would be to add / keep the [PATCH 0/n] prefix on the PR / cover letter when posting the patches under it. It seems that patchwork is hopeless in delineating the patches and the PR if that's not there. For whatever reason it grouped the PR and patch 2 as a series and patch 1 was left separate :S
Hello: This pull request was applied to netdev/net.git (master) by Steffen Klassert <steffen.klassert@secunet.com>: On Wed, 16 Mar 2022 13:11:40 +0100 you wrote: > Two last fixes for this release cycle: > > 1) Fix a kernel-info-leak in pfkey. > From Haimin Zhang. > > 2) Fix an incorrect check of the return value of ipv6_skip_exthdr. > From Sabrina Dubroca. > > [...] Here is the summary with links: - pull request (net): ipsec 2022-03-16 https://git.kernel.org/netdev/net/c/186abea8a80b - [2/2] esp6: fix check on ipv6_skip_exthdr's return value https://git.kernel.org/netdev/net/c/4db4075f92af You are awesome, thank you!
On Wed, Mar 16, 2022 at 11:44:38AM -0700, Jakub Kicinski wrote: > On Wed, 16 Mar 2022 13:11:40 +0100 Steffen Klassert wrote: > > Two last fixes for this release cycle: > > > > 1) Fix a kernel-info-leak in pfkey. > > From Haimin Zhang. > > > > 2) Fix an incorrect check of the return value of ipv6_skip_exthdr. > > From Sabrina Dubroca. > > Excellent, thank you! > > > Please pull or let me know if there are problems. > > One minor improvement to appease patchwork would be to add / keep the > [PATCH 0/n] prefix on the PR / cover letter when posting the patches > under it. I did that in the ipsec-next pull request, let me know if this is OK as I did it. > It seems that patchwork is hopeless in delineating the > patches and the PR if that's not there. For whatever reason it grouped > the PR and patch 2 as a series and patch 1 was left separate :S I guess this is why I get always two mails from patchwork-bot for each pull request. I already wondered why that happens :)
On Sat, 19 Mar 2022 08:49:11 +0100 Steffen Klassert wrote: > On Wed, Mar 16, 2022 at 11:44:38AM -0700, Jakub Kicinski wrote: > > One minor improvement to appease patchwork would be to add / keep the > > [PATCH 0/n] prefix on the PR / cover letter when posting the patches > > under it. > > I did that in the ipsec-next pull request, let me know if this is > OK as I did it. Yes, that one worked out perfectly. Thanks! > > It seems that patchwork is hopeless in delineating the > > patches and the PR if that's not there. For whatever reason it grouped > > the PR and patch 2 as a series and patch 1 was left separate :S > > I guess this is why I get always two mails from patchwork-bot for > each pull request. I already wondered why that happens :) To be honest the pr handling in the patchwork-bot is not 100% accurate, I wish it was responding to the pr / cover letter. We'll get there :)