Message-ID: <b6c19c9c-de6c-225c-5899-789dfd8e7ae8@tessares.net>
Date:   Fri, 10 Dec 2021 16:36:06 +0100
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:91.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/91.4.0
Subject: Re: [PATCH] selftests: mptcp: remove duplicate include in mptcp_inq.c
Content-Language: en-GB
To:     Jakub Kicinski <kuba@kernel.org>
Cc:     cgel.zte@gmail.com, mathew.j.martineau@linux.intel.com,
        davem@davemloft.net, shuah@kernel.org, netdev@vger.kernel.org,
        mptcp@lists.linux.dev, linux-kselftest@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Ye Guojin <ye.guojin@zte.com.cn>,
        ZealRobot <zealci@zte.com.cn>
References: <20211210071424.425773-1-ye.guojin@zte.com.cn>
 <ab84ca1f-0f43-d50c-c272-81f64ee31ce8@tessares.net>
 <20211210065437.27c8fe23@kicinski-fedora-pc1c0hjn.dhcp.thefacebook.com>
 <20211210065644.192f5159@kicinski-fedora-pc1c0hjn.dhcp.thefacebook.com>
From:   Matthieu Baerts <matthieu.baerts@tessares.net>
In-Reply-To: <20211210065644.192f5159@kicinski-fedora-pc1c0hjn.dhcp.thefacebook.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: bulk

Hi Jakub,

On 10/12/2021 15:56, Jakub Kicinski wrote:
> On Fri, 10 Dec 2021 06:54:37 -0800 Jakub Kicinski wrote:
>> On Fri, 10 Dec 2021 10:58:27 +0100 Matthieu Baerts wrote:
>>> Hi Ye,
>>>
>>> On 10/12/2021 08:14, cgel.zte@gmail.com wrote:  
>>>> From: Ye Guojin <ye.guojin@zte.com.cn>
>>>>
>>>> 'sys/ioctl.h' included in 'mptcp_inq.c' is duplicated.    
>>>
>>> Good catch, the modification looks good to me:
>>>
>>> Reviewed-by: Matthieu Baerts <matthieu.baerts@tessares.net>
>>>
>>>
>>> This patch is for "net-next" tree as it fixes an issue introduced by a
>>> patch only in this tree:
>>>
>>> Fixes: b51880568f20 ("selftests: mptcp: add inq test case")
>>>
>>> Regarding the commit message, please next time include the Fixes tag and
>>> mention for which tree it is for in the FAQ [1], e.g. [PATCH net-next].
>>>
>>>
>>> @David/Jakub: do you prefer a v2 with these modifications or is it fine
>>> to apply this small patch directly in net-next tree?  
>>
>> v1 is fine. Let me apply it right away and do the edits before I forget
>> they are needed..

Thank you!

> Actually, I take that back, let's hear from Mat, he may want to take
> the patch via his tree.

We "rebase" our tree on top of net-next every night. I think for such
small patches with no behaviour change and sent directly to netdev ML,
it is probably best to apply them directly. I can check with Mat if it
is an issue if you prefer.

I would have applied it in our MPTCP tree if we were sending PR, not to
bother you for such patches but I guess it is best not to have us
sending this patch a second time later :)

BTW, if you prefer us sending PR over batches of patches, please tell us!

Cheers,
Matt
-- 
Tessares | Belgium | Hybrid Access Solutions
www.tessares.net