On Thu, 29 Oct 2020 17:26:09 +0100 Arnd Bergmann wrote: > n Thu, Oct 29, 2020 at 4:56 PM Jakub Kicinski <kuba@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Wed, 28 Oct 2020 06:56:28 +0100 Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote: > > > On Tue, Oct 27, 2020 at 10:20:13PM +0100, Arnd Bergmann wrote: > > > > > > Is this ok for me to take through the staging tree? If so, I need an > > > ack from the networking maintainers. > > > > > > If not, feel free to send it through the networking tree and add: > > > > > > Acked-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > > > Thinking about it now - we want this applied to -next, correct? > > In that case it may be better if we take it. The code is pretty dead > > but syzbot and the trivial fix crowd don't know it, so I may slip, > > apply something and we'll have a conflict. > > I think git will deal with a merge between branches containing > the move vs fix, so it should work either way. > > A downside of having the move in net-next would be that > you'd get trivial fixes send to Greg, but him being unable to > apply them to his tree because the code is elsewhere. > > If you think it helps, I could prepare a pull request with this one > patch (and probably the bugfix I sent first that triggered it), and > then you can both merge the branch into net-next as well > as staging-next. If you wouldn't mind branch sounds like the best solution. Acked-by: Jakub Kicinski <kuba@xxxxxxxxxx>
