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@xxxxxxxxx wrote:
>>>> From: Ye Guojin <ye.guojin@xxxxxxxxxx>
>>>>
>>>> 'sys/ioctl.h' included in 'mptcp_inq.c' is duplicated.
>>>
>>> Good catch, the modification looks good to me:
>>>
>>> Reviewed-by: Matthieu Baerts <matthieu.baerts@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
>>>
>>>
>>> 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
--
Tessares | Belgium | Hybrid Access Solutions
www.tessares.net
