On Mon, Sep 19, 2016 at 5:00 AM, David Miller <da...@davemloft.net> wrote:
> From: Tariq Toukan <ttoukan.li...@gmail.com>
> Date: Sun, 18 Sep 2016 10:27:23 +0300
>> Hi Dave,
>> On 16/09/2016 2:21 AM, David Miller wrote:
>>> From: Tariq Toukan <tar...@mellanox.com>
>>> Date: Mon, 12 Sep 2016 16:20:11 +0300
>>>> This patchset contains some bug fixes, a cleanup, and small
>>>> from the team to the mlx4 Eth and core drivers.
>>>> Series generated against net-next commit:
>>>> 02154927c115 "net: dsa: bcm_sf2: Get VLAN_PORT_MASK from b53_device"
>>>> Please push the following patch to -stable >= 4.6 as well:
>>>> "net/mlx4_core: Fix to clean devlink resources"
>>> Again, coding style fixes and optimizations like branch prediction
>>> hints are not bug fixes and therefore not appropriate for 'net'.
>> Yes, I know. Please notice that it was submitted to net-next this
> This is completely incompatible with a request for one of the changes
> to go into -stable.
> If the change is not in 'net', it can't go to -stable.
So when we're pretty late in the 4.8-rc cycle, a fix for a problem
which was not introduced in 4.8-rc1 was targeted to net-next (4.9) and
This indeed creates a small mess when the fix needs to go to -stable as well.
I guess the correct thing to do next time, would be to either send to
net and ask you to take it to stable as part of picking the patch --
or send to net-next, and later send you a request to put it to stable
-- or, wait a bit and send it to net of the next kernel along with
stable request... we will pick one of these three way of doings next
So, at this point, I think it would be just correct to take the series
to net-next, and on a future point we'll issue a request to push the
patch into stable.