Hi Greg,
On 12/12/24 12:24, Greg KH wrote:
...
Fixes: 0c4dcd602817 ("RDMA/bnxt_re: Refactor hardware queue memory allocation")
Signed-off-by: Michal Schmidt <mschmidt@xxxxxxxxxx>
Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20240507103929.30003-1-mschmidt@xxxxxxxxxx
Acked-by: Selvin Xavier <selvin.xavier@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
Signed-off-by: Leon Romanovsky <leon@xxxxxxxxxx>
Signed-off-by: Xiangyu Chen <xiangyu.chen@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Signed-off-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
I have not signed off on this backport, why did you add this here? You
do know what this is saying right?
Note: I think Guocai cherry-picked 6.1.y commit: (probable reason for
your SOB and Xiangyu Chen's SOB there)
stable-6.1 : v6.1.117 - 84d2f2915218 bnxt_re: avoid shift
undefined behavior in bnxt_qplib_alloc_init_hwq
This clean cherry-picks to 5.15.y
Question: In cases like this where we benefit from cherry-picking a
commit from another stable branch as opposed to upstream commit(if we
used original upstream for cherry-picking, we would get conflicts and
probably have to resolve in the same way as we did for 6.1.y], how do we
differentiate that in commit message ? May be with a comment before SOB
[ Harshit: Cherry-picked it from 6.1.y branch, it is a clean
cherry-pick], as per Option 3 documented in [1], the first line (commit
78cfd17142ef70599d6409cbd709d94b3da58659 upstream) should still point to
upstream commit right ?
[1] https://www.kernel.org/doc/html/v6.12/process/stable-kernel-rules.html
Thanks,
Harshit
Please work with your other kernel developers at your company for you
all to come up with a better workflow for doing all of these backports.
What you are doing here now just isn't working for us at all, sorry.
greg k-h