In networking then they want you to say which tree it applies to, but it's not as simple as saying "net" vs "net-next". If it's a bugfix then you should write that against "net" but if it's a clean up or a fix to a recent change then it should be written against "net-next". Also linux-next is not necessarily the same thing as net-next. Networking patches should be written against either net or net-next, not linux-next. BPF tried to implement similar rules to they're not big enough to impose their own rules. It's quite a big headache to try to figure out which tree to use if you're like me and have no clue about bpf. Anyway, the point of the net vs net-next is that devs are supposed to figure out the exact tree and they're supposed to only write net-next if it doesn't apply to net. It's not clear to me the value of putting linux-next in the subject. Doesn't everyone develop against the latest devel tree? Certainly I can't imagine any maintainers doing extra work to try figure out the date of the linux-next release. Surely, they just say "Doesn't apply to foo-tree. Resend if necessary." That's the fastest and easiest response when patches don't apply. regards, dan carpente
