On Wed, 7 Jun 2023 11:10:42 -0300 Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 06, 2023 at 10:01:17PM -0700, Jakub Kicinski wrote:
> > On Tue, 6 Jun 2023 00:12:17 -0700 Saeed Mahameed wrote:
> > > Fixes: bffaa916588e ("net/mlx5: E-Switch, Add control for inline mode")
> > > Fixes: 8c98ee77d911 ("net/mlx5e: E-Switch, Add extack messages to devlink callbacks")
> >
> > The combination of net-next and Fixes is always odd.
> > Why?
> > Either it's important enough to be a fix or its not important
> > and can go to net-next...
>
> Generally I tell people to mark things as Fixes if it is a fix,
> regardless of how small, minor or unimportant.
Yes, exactly, we do the same, but also to send them all to net.
> It helps backporters because they can suck in the original patch and
> all the touchups then test that result. If people try to predict if it
> is "important" or not they get it wrong quite often.
>
> Fixes is not supposed to mean "this is important" or "send this to
> -rc" or "apply it to -stable"
Agreed with the distinction that we consider every fix -rc worthy.
We'll obviously apply our own judgment but submitter should send all
fixes against net.
> If it is really important add a 'cc: stable'.
>
> If it is sort of important then send it to the -rc tree.
>
> Otherwise dump it in the merge window.
You just said that people can't predict the importance of their fixes
and yet you draw categories.
> But mark it with Fixes regardless
Every subsystem can make their own rules. In netdev Fixes go to net.
