On 14.09.2024 at 01:21, Simon Horman wrote: > On Fri, Sep 13, 2024 at 07:48:08PM -0700, Jakub Kicinski wrote: >> On Fri, 13 Sep 2024 19:12:01 -0700 Krzysztof Olędzki wrote: >>> On 13.09.2024 at 13:55, Jakub Kicinski wrote: >>>> On Wed, 11 Sep 2024 23:38:45 -0700 Krzysztof Olędzki wrote: >>>>> Use SFF8024 constants defined in linux/sfp.h instead of private ones. >>>>> >>>>> Make mlx4_en_get_module_info() and mlx5e_get_module_info() to look >>>>> as close as possible to each other. >>>>> >>>>> Simplify the logic for selecting SFF_8436 vs SFF_8636. >>>> >>>> Minor process suggestion, I think you may be sending the patches one by >>>> one. It's best to format them into a new directory and send all at once >>>> with git send-email. Add a cover letter, too. >>>> >>> >>> Thanks, yes, will do for v2. I assume this needs to wait for about >>> two weeks for net-next to re-open? >> >> The cleanups - yes, but if patch 3 works you should make it independent >> and send as a fix (and trees never close for fixes). > > Hi Krzysztof, > > Just to expand on what Jakub wrote a little. In general fixes should have a > Fixes tag and be targeted at the net tree. > > Subject: [PATCH net] ... > > Link: https://docs.kernel.org/process/maintainer-netdev.html Yes, thank you Simon for the additional feedback. I initially targeted net-next following Ido's request: https://lore.kernel.org/netdev/Ztna8O1ZGUc4kvKJ@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx/ If we all believe "net" is the right target, I'm more than happy to update it and re-send that single patch now. Should I mark it as "v2" even if no difference because of the tree change? Also, I did include Fixes in that patch: Fixes: f5826c8c9d57 ("net/mlx4_en: Fix wrong return value on ioctl EEPROM query failure") Fixes: 32a173c7f9e9 ("net/mlx4_core: Introduce mlx4_get_module_info for cable module info reading") See: https://lore.kernel.org/netdev/2aa0787e-a148-456e-b1b5-8f1e9785ed04@xxxxxx/ Thanks, Krzysztof
