Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.18;
Date:   Tue, 23 Jun 2020 09:40:16 +0000
To:     David Miller <davem@davemloft.net>
From:   Alexander Lobakin <alobakin@pm.me>
Cc:     "kuba@kernel.org" <kuba@kernel.org>,
        "mkubecek@suse.cz" <mkubecek@suse.cz>,
        "f.fainelli@gmail.com" <f.fainelli@gmail.com>,
        "andrew@lunn.ch" <andrew@lunn.ch>,
        "jiri@mellanox.com" <jiri@mellanox.com>,
        "antoine.tenart@bootlin.com" <antoine.tenart@bootlin.com>,
        "steffen.klassert@secunet.com" <steffen.klassert@secunet.com>,
        "ayal@mellanox.com" <ayal@mellanox.com>,
        "therbert@google.com" <therbert@google.com>,
        "netdev@vger.kernel.org" <netdev@vger.kernel.org>,
        "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Reply-To: Alexander Lobakin <alobakin@pm.me>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 net 0/3] net: ethtool: netdev_features_strings[] cleanup
Message-ID: <JsL7L8OuXUs86d8IwlgSkHKgxaymF4ys_7cUQTMgPptaPdog6471ed5_BpUYUvoGNuSaHMs0ayvZ-P6-NQ0TvMGSyvu45J6NhuvJEHPxGsE=@pm.me>
In-Reply-To: <20200622.163406.1755086886045118386.davem@davemloft.net>
References: <HPTrw9hrtm3e5151oH8oQfbr0HWTlzQ1n68bZn1hfd6yag38Tem57b4eTH-bhlaJgBxyhZb9U-qFFOafJoQqxcY-VX5fh5ZktTrnWhYeNB0=@pm.me> <20200622.163406.1755086886045118386.davem@davemloft.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

Hi Dave, Michal,

On Tuesday, 23 June 2020, 2:34, David Miller <davem@davemloft.net> wrote:

> From: Alexander Lobakin <alobakin@pm.me>
> Date: Sun, 21 Jun 2020 09:55:50 +0000

> > This little series adds the last forgotten feature string for
> > NETIF_F_GSO_TUNNEL_REMCSUM and attempts to prevent such losses
> > in future.
> >
> > Patches 2-3 seem more like net-next candidates rather than net-fixes,
> > but for me it seems a bit more suitable to pull it during "quiet" RC
> > windows, so any new related code could start from this base.
> >
> > I was thinking about some kind of static assertion to have an early
> > prevention mechanism for this, but the existing of 2 intended holes
> > (former NO_CSUM and UFO) makes this problematic, at least at first
> > sight.
> >
> > v2:
> >  - fix the "Fixes:" tag in the first patch;
> >  - no functional changes.
>
> Please do not mix bug fixes (missing netdev feature strings, etc.) with
> cleanups (indentation changes).

You both are right, I should've thought better about that.
I'll split the series into two and resend, sorry.

> Thank you.

Thanks,
Al