On Tue, Jul 23, 2019 at 11:28:50AM -0700, David Miller wrote:
> From: Leon Romanovsky <leon@xxxxxxxxxx>
> Date: Tue, 23 Jul 2019 10:12:55 +0300
>
> > From: Edward Srouji <edwards@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
> >
> > Fix modify_cq_in alignment to match the device specification.
> > After this fix the 'cq_umem_valid' field will be in the right offset.
> >
> > Cc: <stable@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> # 4.19
> > Fixes: bd37197554eb ("net/mlx5: Update mlx5_ifc with DEVX UID bits")
> > Signed-off-by: Edward Srouji <edwards@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > Reviewed-by: Yishai Hadas <yishaih@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > Signed-off-by: Leon Romanovsky <leonro@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
>
> Very confusing submission on many levels.
>
> Coming from a Mellanox developer using a kernel.org email address.
It works for us and was proven internally as the best way to have
setup which always works.
>
> Targetting the mlx5-next tree, yet CC:'ing stable.
This patch was found by RDMA team, needed by RDMA but changes are located
in code accessible by mlx5_core part. This is why mlx5-next.
>
> A networking change, for which stable submissions are handled by me by
> hand and not via CC:'ing stable.
The intention was to have this patch in shared mlx5 branch, which is
picked by RDMA too. This "Cc: stable@..." together with merge through
RDMA will ensure that such patch will be part of stable automatically.
I can remove "Cc: ..." line if you think that it is inappropriate to
have such line in patch in mlx5-next.
Thanks
