| Message ID | 20240521013715.12098-1-shannon.nelson@amd.com (mailing list archive) |
|---|---|
| Headers | show |
| Series | ionic: small fixes for 6.10 | expand |
On Mon, May 20, 2024 at 06:37:08PM -0700, Shannon Nelson wrote: > These are a few minor fixes for the ionic driver to clean > up a some little things that have been waiting for attention. > > Brett Creeley (3): > ionic: Pass ionic_txq_desc to ionic_tx_tso_post > ionic: Mark error paths in the data path as unlikely > ionic: Use netdev_name() function instead of netdev->name > > Shannon Nelson (4): > ionic: fix potential irq name truncation > ionic: Reset LIF device while restarting LIF > ionic: only sync frag_len in first buffer of xdp > ionic: fix up ionic_if.h kernel-doc issues Hi Shannon and Brett, All of these patches look like good improvements to me. However, it is only obvious to me why patch 2/7 is a bug fix suitable for net. Would the other patches be better targeted at net-next once it reopens?
On 5/21/2024 7:06 AM, Simon Horman wrote: > On Mon, May 20, 2024 at 06:37:08PM -0700, Shannon Nelson wrote: >> These are a few minor fixes for the ionic driver to clean >> up a some little things that have been waiting for attention. >> >> Brett Creeley (3): >> ionic: Pass ionic_txq_desc to ionic_tx_tso_post >> ionic: Mark error paths in the data path as unlikely >> ionic: Use netdev_name() function instead of netdev->name >> >> Shannon Nelson (4): >> ionic: fix potential irq name truncation >> ionic: Reset LIF device while restarting LIF >> ionic: only sync frag_len in first buffer of xdp >> ionic: fix up ionic_if.h kernel-doc issues > > Hi Shannon and Brett, > > All of these patches look like good improvements to me. > However, it is only obvious to me why patch 2/7 is a bug fix > suitable for net. Would the other patches be better targeted > at net-next once it reopens? Hi Simon, As always, thanks for taking a look at the set. All of these patches are fixing existing code, whether by cleaning up compiler warnings (1, 7), tweaking for slightly better code (3, 4), getting rid of open coding instances (5), and fixing bad behavior (2,6). It seems to me these fit under the "fixes to existing code" mentioned in our Documentation/process/maintainer-netdev.rst guidelines. Thanks, sln
On Tue, 21 May 2024 10:14:24 -0700 Nelson, Shannon wrote: > As always, thanks for taking a look at the set. > > All of these patches are fixing existing code, whether by cleaning up > compiler warnings (1, 7), tweaking for slightly better code (3, 4), > getting rid of open coding instances (5), and fixing bad behavior (2,6). > It seems to me these fit under the "fixes to existing code" mentioned > in our Documentation/process/maintainer-netdev.rst guidelines. I think that's a stretch, Simon is right. Maybe we can take patches 1 and 7 without the Fixes tag, just to make your life easier. But if the rest are fixes I wouldn't know what isn't..
On 5/22/2024 10:04 AM, Jakub Kicinski wrote: > On Tue, 21 May 2024 10:14:24 -0700 Nelson, Shannon wrote: >> As always, thanks for taking a look at the set. >> >> All of these patches are fixing existing code, whether by cleaning up >> compiler warnings (1, 7), tweaking for slightly better code (3, 4), >> getting rid of open coding instances (5), and fixing bad behavior (2,6). >> It seems to me these fit under the "fixes to existing code" mentioned >> in our Documentation/process/maintainer-netdev.rst guidelines. > > I think that's a stretch, Simon is right. Maybe we can take patches > 1 and 7 without the Fixes tag, just to make your life easier. > But if the rest are fixes I wouldn't know what isn't.. I'll respin them next week for net-next. sln