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:   Mon, 19 Oct 2020 13:40:48 -0700
From:   Jakub Kicinski <kuba@kernel.org>
To:     Matthieu Baerts <matthieu.baerts@tessares.net>
Cc:     Geliang Tang <geliangtang@gmail.com>,
        Mat Martineau <mathew.j.martineau@linux.intel.com>,
        "David S. Miller" <davem@davemloft.net>,
        Paolo Abeni <pabeni@redhat.com>,
        Peter Krystad <peter.krystad@linux.intel.com>,
        netdev@vger.kernel.org, mptcp@lists.01.org,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [MPTCP][PATCH net-next 0/2] init ahmac and port of
 mptcp_options_received
Message-ID: <20201019134048.11c75c9a@kicinski-fedora-pc1c0hjn.dhcp.thefacebook.com>
In-Reply-To: <7766357d-0838-1603-9967-8910aa312f65@tessares.net>
References: <cover.1603102503.git.geliangtang@gmail.com>
        <7766357d-0838-1603-9967-8910aa312f65@tessares.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: bulk

On Mon, 19 Oct 2020 18:27:55 +0200 Matthieu Baerts wrote:
> Hi Geliang,
> 
> On 19/10/2020 12:23, Geliang Tang wrote:
> > This patchset deals with initializations of mptcp_options_received's two
> > fields, ahmac and port.
> > 
> > Geliang Tang (2):
> >    mptcp: initialize mptcp_options_received's ahmac
> >    mptcp: move mptcp_options_received's port initialization  
> 
> Thank you for these two patches. They look good to me except one detail: 
> these two patches are for -net and not net-next.
> 
> I don't know if it is alright for Jakub to apply them to -net or if it 
> is clearer to re-send them with an updated subject.
> 
> If it is OK to apply them to -net without a re-submit, here is my:
> 
> Reviewed-by: Matthieu Baerts <matthieu.baerts@tessares.net>

Thanks, I can apply to net.

> Also, if you don't mind and while I am here, I never know: is it OK for 
> you the maintainers to send one Acked/Reviewed-by for a whole series -- 
> but then this is not reflected on patchwork -- or should we send one tag 
> for each patch?

It's fine, we propagate those semi-manually, but it's not a problem.
Hopefully patchwork will address this at some point :(