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;
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <20201204200920.133780-1-mario.limonciello@dell.com>
 <CAKgT0Uc=OxcuHbZihY3zxsxzPprJ_8vGHr=reBJFMrf=V9A5kg@mail.gmail.com>
 <DM6PR19MB2636B200D618A5546E7BBB57FAF10@DM6PR19MB2636.namprd19.prod.outlook.com>
 <CAKgT0UfuyrbzpDNySMmnAkqKnw9cYuEM1LhgG0QvmrY=smR-uw@mail.gmail.com> <20201205154951.4dd92194@kicinski-fedora-pc1c0hjn.DHCP.thefacebook.com>
In-Reply-To: <20201205154951.4dd92194@kicinski-fedora-pc1c0hjn.DHCP.thefacebook.com>
From:   Alexander Duyck <alexander.duyck@gmail.com>
Date:   Sun, 6 Dec 2020 09:32:23 -0800
Message-ID: <CAKgT0UcJh219bAXJtJFu7BZsh2+UVGqpLmTiX9V1utsQpPSjvA@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 0/7] Improve s0ix flows for systems i219LM
To:     Jakub Kicinski <kuba@kernel.org>
Cc:     "Limonciello, Mario" <Mario.Limonciello@dell.com>,
        Jeff Kirsher <jeffrey.t.kirsher@intel.com>,
        Tony Nguyen <anthony.l.nguyen@intel.com>,
        intel-wired-lan <intel-wired-lan@lists.osuosl.org>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        Linux PM <linux-pm@vger.kernel.org>,
        Netdev <netdev@vger.kernel.org>,
        Sasha Netfin <sasha.neftin@intel.com>,
        Aaron Brown <aaron.f.brown@intel.com>,
        Stefan Assmann <sassmann@redhat.com>,
        David Miller <davem@davemloft.net>,
        David Arcari <darcari@redhat.com>,
        "Shen, Yijun" <Yijun.Shen@dell.com>,
        "Yuan, Perry" <Perry.Yuan@dell.com>,
        "anthony.wong@canonical.com" <anthony.wong@canonical.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Precedence: bulk

On Sat, Dec 5, 2020 at 3:49 PM Jakub Kicinski <kuba@kernel.org> wrote:
>
> On Fri, 4 Dec 2020 14:38:03 -0800 Alexander Duyck wrote:
> > > > The patches look good to me. Just need to address the minor issue that
> > > > seems to have been present prior to the introduction of this patch
> > > > set.
> > > >
> > > > Reviewed-by: Alexander Duyck <alexanderduyck@fb.com>
> > >
> > > Thanks for your review.  Just some operational questions - since this previously
> > > existed do you want me to re-spin the series to a v4 for this, or should it be
> > > a follow up after the series?
> > >
> > > If I respin it, would you prefer that change to occur at the start or end
> > > of the series?
> >
> > I don't need a respin, but if you are going to fix it you should
> > probably put out the patch as something like a 8/7. If you respin it
> > should happen near the start of the series as it is a bug you are
> > addressing.
>
> Don't we need that patch to be before this series so it can be
> back ported easily? Or is it not really a bug?

You're right. For backports it would make it easier to have the patch
be before the changes. As far as being a bug, it is one, but it isn't
an urgent bug as it is basically some bad exception handling so the
likelihood of seeing it should be quite low.