On Mon, 05 Feb 2024, Lee Jones wrote: > On Mon, 05 Feb 2024, Christian Marangi wrote: > > > On Mon, Feb 05, 2024 at 02:33:59PM +0000, Lee Jones wrote: > > > On Mon, 05 Feb 2024, Christian Marangi wrote: > > > > > > > On Mon, Feb 05, 2024 at 02:41:46PM +0100, Andrew Lunn wrote: > > > > > > > This should have 'net' in the subject line, to indicate which tree its > > > > > > > for. > > > > > > > > > > > > No, it shouldn't. > > > > > > > > > > > > Contributors aren't obliged to know anything about merging strategies. > > > > > > > > > > With netdev, we tend to assume they do, or at least can contribute to > > > > > the discussion. They often know about any dependencies etc which could > > > > > influence the decision. When there are multiple subsystem maintainers > > > > > involved, i tend to use To: to indicate the maintainer i think should > > > > > merge the patch, and Cc: for the rest. > > > > > > > > > > > > > I'm always a bit confused when I have to send patch to mixed subsystem > > > > (not the case but for net trigger it's almost that). Sorry for the > > > > confusion/noise. > > > > > > When you have a truly cross-subsystem patch, it's up to you. > > > > > > - Mention both e.g. leds/net: > > > - Mention neither e.g. <device>: > > > - Mention the one that is most relevant > > > > > > An example of the last option might be when the lion's share of the > > > changes occur in one subsystem and only header files are changed in the > > > other. > > > > > > In an ideal world i.e. when there are no build-time/runtime deps between > > > them, changes should be separated out into their own commits. > > > > > > > Thanks a lot for the explaination and the examples! > > > > > > > > Why does this need to go in via net? > > > > > > > > > > It does not, as far as i'm aware. Christian, do you know of any > > > > > reason? > > > > > > > > > > > > > This is strictly a fix, no dependency or anything like that. Maybe using > > > > net as target would make this faster to merge (since net is for fix only > > > > and this has to be backported) than using leds-next? > > > > > > We have leds-fixes for that. > > > > > > > Oh! No idea, should I add a tag to the patch to target that branch > > specifically? > > You don't need to do anything special. > > The Fixes: tag is enough to let us know that this is a fix. > > If the commit mentioned in Fixes: was accepted as part of the last > merge-window, it'll be sent to the -rcs in good time. If it fixes a > commit which was introduced in a previous cycle, it'll be submitted > during the next merge-window. Since this patch fixes an issue that was incorporated into v6.4, we shall not be submitting this for the v6.8-rcs. Instead it's heading for the v6.9 merge-window and will be backported to v6.6.y accordingly. -- Lee Jones [李琼斯]
