On Fri, 5 Aug 2022 09:05:47 +0200 Alexandra Winter wrote: > >> Since this is for net, than yes, maybe it would be best to go with a > >> minimal patch to make your backwards around code work. But for > >> net-next, you really should fix this properly. > > > > Then again this patch doesn't look like a regression fix (and does not > > have a fixes tag). Channeling my inner Greg I'd say - fix this right and > > then worry about backports later. > This patch is a pre-req for [PATCH net 2/2] s390/qeth: use cached link_info for ethtool > 2/2 is the regression fix. > Guidance is welcome. Should I merge them into a single commit? > Or clarify in the commit message of 1/1 that this is a preparation for 2/2? Ohh, now it makes far more sense, I see. Could you please add a line to patch 1 saying that it's a pre-req for the next change, separated out for ease of review? Hopefully the backport does not get confused and pulls in both of them...
