| Message ID | 20211210071424.425773-1-ye.guojin@zte.com.cn (mailing list archive) |
|---|---|
| State | Accepted |
| Commit | db10415448158779127ad529335e2c447c5767c1 |
| Headers | show |
| Series | selftests: mptcp: remove duplicate include in mptcp_inq.c | expand |
Hi Ye, On 10/12/2021 08:14, cgel.zte@gmail.com wrote: > From: Ye Guojin <ye.guojin@zte.com.cn> > > 'sys/ioctl.h' included in 'mptcp_inq.c' is duplicated. Good catch, the modification looks good to me: Reviewed-by: Matthieu Baerts <matthieu.baerts@tessares.net> This patch is for "net-next" tree as it fixes an issue introduced by a patch only in this tree: Fixes: b51880568f20 ("selftests: mptcp: add inq test case") Regarding the commit message, please next time include the Fixes tag and mention for which tree it is for in the FAQ [1], e.g. [PATCH net-next]. @David/Jakub: do you prefer a v2 with these modifications or is it fine to apply this small patch directly in net-next tree? Cheers, Matt [1] https://www.kernel.org/doc/html/latest/networking/netdev-FAQ.html Please check the "How do I indicate which tree (net vs. net-next) my patch should be in?" section.
On Fri, 10 Dec 2021 10:58:27 +0100 Matthieu Baerts wrote: > Hi Ye, > > On 10/12/2021 08:14, cgel.zte@gmail.com wrote: > > From: Ye Guojin <ye.guojin@zte.com.cn> > > > > 'sys/ioctl.h' included in 'mptcp_inq.c' is duplicated. > > Good catch, the modification looks good to me: > > Reviewed-by: Matthieu Baerts <matthieu.baerts@tessares.net> > > > This patch is for "net-next" tree as it fixes an issue introduced by a > patch only in this tree: > > Fixes: b51880568f20 ("selftests: mptcp: add inq test case") > > Regarding the commit message, please next time include the Fixes tag and > mention for which tree it is for in the FAQ [1], e.g. [PATCH net-next]. > > > @David/Jakub: do you prefer a v2 with these modifications or is it fine > to apply this small patch directly in net-next tree? v1 is fine. Let me apply it right away and do the edits before I forget they are needed..
On Fri, 10 Dec 2021 06:54:37 -0800 Jakub Kicinski wrote: > On Fri, 10 Dec 2021 10:58:27 +0100 Matthieu Baerts wrote: > > Hi Ye, > > > > On 10/12/2021 08:14, cgel.zte@gmail.com wrote: > > > From: Ye Guojin <ye.guojin@zte.com.cn> > > > > > > 'sys/ioctl.h' included in 'mptcp_inq.c' is duplicated. > > > > Good catch, the modification looks good to me: > > > > Reviewed-by: Matthieu Baerts <matthieu.baerts@tessares.net> > > > > > > This patch is for "net-next" tree as it fixes an issue introduced by a > > patch only in this tree: > > > > Fixes: b51880568f20 ("selftests: mptcp: add inq test case") > > > > Regarding the commit message, please next time include the Fixes tag and > > mention for which tree it is for in the FAQ [1], e.g. [PATCH net-next]. > > > > > > @David/Jakub: do you prefer a v2 with these modifications or is it fine > > to apply this small patch directly in net-next tree? > > v1 is fine. Let me apply it right away and do the edits before I forget > they are needed.. Actually, I take that back, let's hear from Mat, he may want to take the patch via his tree.
Hi Jakub, On 10/12/2021 15:56, Jakub Kicinski wrote: > On Fri, 10 Dec 2021 06:54:37 -0800 Jakub Kicinski wrote: >> On Fri, 10 Dec 2021 10:58:27 +0100 Matthieu Baerts wrote: >>> Hi Ye, >>> >>> On 10/12/2021 08:14, cgel.zte@gmail.com wrote: >>>> From: Ye Guojin <ye.guojin@zte.com.cn> >>>> >>>> 'sys/ioctl.h' included in 'mptcp_inq.c' is duplicated. >>> >>> Good catch, the modification looks good to me: >>> >>> Reviewed-by: Matthieu Baerts <matthieu.baerts@tessares.net> >>> >>> >>> This patch is for "net-next" tree as it fixes an issue introduced by a >>> patch only in this tree: >>> >>> Fixes: b51880568f20 ("selftests: mptcp: add inq test case") >>> >>> Regarding the commit message, please next time include the Fixes tag and >>> mention for which tree it is for in the FAQ [1], e.g. [PATCH net-next]. >>> >>> >>> @David/Jakub: do you prefer a v2 with these modifications or is it fine >>> to apply this small patch directly in net-next tree? >> >> v1 is fine. Let me apply it right away and do the edits before I forget >> they are needed.. Thank you! > Actually, I take that back, let's hear from Mat, he may want to take > the patch via his tree. We "rebase" our tree on top of net-next every night. I think for such small patches with no behaviour change and sent directly to netdev ML, it is probably best to apply them directly. I can check with Mat if it is an issue if you prefer. I would have applied it in our MPTCP tree if we were sending PR, not to bother you for such patches but I guess it is best not to have us sending this patch a second time later :) BTW, if you prefer us sending PR over batches of patches, please tell us! Cheers, Matt
On Fri, 10 Dec 2021 16:36:06 +0100 Matthieu Baerts wrote: > > Actually, I take that back, let's hear from Mat, he may want to take > > the patch via his tree. > > We "rebase" our tree on top of net-next every night. I think for such > small patches with no behaviour change and sent directly to netdev ML, > it is probably best to apply them directly. I can check with Mat if it > is an issue if you prefer. Please do, I'm happy to apply the patch but Mat usually prefers to take things thru MPTCP tree. > I would have applied it in our MPTCP tree if we were sending PR, not to > bother you for such patches but I guess it is best not to have us > sending this patch a second time later :) > > BTW, if you prefer us sending PR over batches of patches, please tell us! Small preference for patches. It's good to have the code on the ML for everyone to look at and mixed PR + patches are a tiny bit more clicking for me.
On Fri, 10 Dec 2021, Jakub Kicinski wrote: > On Fri, 10 Dec 2021 16:36:06 +0100 Matthieu Baerts wrote: >>> Actually, I take that back, let's hear from Mat, he may want to take >>> the patch via his tree. >> >> We "rebase" our tree on top of net-next every night. I think for such >> small patches with no behaviour change and sent directly to netdev ML, >> it is probably best to apply them directly. I can check with Mat if it >> is an issue if you prefer. > > Please do, I'm happy to apply the patch but Mat usually prefers to take > things thru MPTCP tree. > Jakub - It is ok with me if you apply this now, for the reasons Matthieu cited. The usual division of labor between Matthieu and I as MPTCP co-maintainers usually has me upstreaming the patches to netdev, but I do trust Matthieu's judgement on sending out Reviewed-by tags and advising direct appliction to the netdev trees! Also, much like you & David, having offset timezones can be helpful. Also appreciate your awareness of the normal patch flow for MPTCP, and that you're checking that we're all on the same page. >> I would have applied it in our MPTCP tree if we were sending PR, not to >> bother you for such patches but I guess it is best not to have us >> sending this patch a second time later :) >> >> BTW, if you prefer us sending PR over batches of patches, please tell us! > > Small preference for patches. It's good to have the code on the ML for > everyone to look at and mixed PR + patches are a tiny bit more clicking > for me. > Good to know. Thanks! -- Mat Martineau Intel
Hello: This patch was applied to netdev/net-next.git (master) by Jakub Kicinski <kuba@kernel.org>: On Fri, 10 Dec 2021 07:14:24 +0000 you wrote: > From: Ye Guojin <ye.guojin@zte.com.cn> > > 'sys/ioctl.h' included in 'mptcp_inq.c' is duplicated. > > Reported-by: ZealRobot <zealci@zte.com.cn> > Signed-off-by: Ye Guojin <ye.guojin@zte.com.cn> > > [...] Here is the summary with links: - selftests: mptcp: remove duplicate include in mptcp_inq.c https://git.kernel.org/netdev/net-next/c/db1041544815 You are awesome, thank you!
diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/net/mptcp/mptcp_inq.c b/tools/testing/selftests/net/mptcp/mptcp_inq.c index b8debd4fb5ed..29f75e2a1116 100644 --- a/tools/testing/selftests/net/mptcp/mptcp_inq.c +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/net/mptcp/mptcp_inq.c @@ -17,7 +17,6 @@ #include <unistd.h> #include <time.h> -#include <sys/ioctl.h> #include <sys/ioctl.h> #include <sys/socket.h> #include <sys/types.h>