Hi Xiaochen,
On 12/11/25 11:32 PM, Xiaochen Shen wrote:
> On 12/12/2025 1:22 PM, Reinette Chatre wrote:
..
>
>
>> not to consider for backport. Could you please consider how you want these
>> patches handled,
>> communicate that clearly in cover letter, and re-organize the series to have
>> the ones needing
>> backport to be at beginning of series?
>
> Thank you for your great suggestions.
>
> I plan to add the maintainer notes in patch #1, patch #2, patch #4 (in
> original patch ordering in v3) and cover letter:
>
> Patch #1 (this patch):
> In my opinion, it is an improvement (to these two commits) rather than a real
> fix:
> commit 6220f69e72a5 ("selftests/resctrl: Extend CPU vendor detection")
> commit c603ff5bb830 ("selftests/resctrl: Introduce generalized test
> framework")
>
> What do you think?
> If you agree with me, I plan to add a maintainer note that it is not a
> candidate for backport in v4 patch series.
I agree with you. Patch #1 is an enhancement and preparatory patch for patch #2.
>
> Patch #2:
> This patch is not a candidate for backport. I will add a maintainer note in
> v4 patch series:
> ---------------------------
> Maintainer note:
> Even though this is a fix it is not a candidate for backport since it is
> based on another patch series (x86/resctrl: Fix Platform QoS issues for
> Hygon) which is in process of being added to resctrl.
> ---------------------------
>
> Patch #3:
> A candidate for backport with "Fixes:" tag. I will move this patch to the
> beginning of series.
>
> Patch #4:
> Already has a maintainer note. Keep no change.
>
> Cover letter:
> I plan to add a maintainer note outlining how I'd like these patches to be
> handled.
Since you describe how patches are to be handled in the cover letter the
maintainer
notes in individual patches are not necessary. It does no harm though and no
problem if
you prefer to keep them.
Thank you.
Reinette
