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. > > > 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. -- Lee Jones [李琼斯]
