Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:20 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::1:20;
Date:   Thu, 12 Jan 2023 11:56:59 +0000
From:   Andre Przywara <andre.przywara@arm.com>
To:     Paolo Abeni <pabeni@redhat.com>
Cc:     Jakub Kicinski <kuba@kernel.org>,
        "David S . Miller" <davem@davemloft.net>,
        Eric Dumazet <edumazet@google.com>, linux-usb@vger.kernel.org,
        netdev@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        Greg KH <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next] r8152: add vendor/device ID pair for Microsoft
 Devkit
Message-ID: <20230112115659.27fb453d@donnerap.cambridge.arm.com>
In-Reply-To: <4c48269962dafbb641d5b0c38ec5b7bf951f3b4d.camel@redhat.com>
References: <20230111133228.190801-1-andre.przywara@arm.com>
        <20230111213143.71f2ad7e@kernel.org>
        <20230112105137.7b09e70b@donnerap.cambridge.arm.com>
        <4c48269962dafbb641d5b0c38ec5b7bf951f3b4d.camel@redhat.com>
Organization: ARM
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: bulk

On Thu, 12 Jan 2023 12:39:01 +0100
Paolo Abeni <pabeni@redhat.com> wrote:

Hi,

> On Thu, 2023-01-12 at 10:51 +0000, Andre Przywara wrote:
> > On Wed, 11 Jan 2023 21:31:43 -0800 Jakub Kicinski <kuba@kernel.org> wrote:  
> > > Hm, we have a patch in net-next which reformats the entries:
> > > ec51fbd1b8a2bca2948dede99c14ec63dc57ff6b
> > > 
> > > Would you like this ID to be also added in stable? We could just 
> > > apply it to net, and deal with the conflict locally. But if you 
> > > don't care about older kernels then better if you rebase.  
> > 
> > Stable would be nice, but only to v6.1. I think I don't care
> > about older kernels.
> > So what about if I resend this one here, based on top of the reformat
> > patch, with a:
> > Cc: <stable@vger.kernel.org> # 6.1.x
> > line in there, and then reply to the email that the automatic backport
> > failed, with a tailored patch for v6.1?
> > Alternatively I can send an explicit stable backport email once this one
> > is merged.  
> 
> Note that we can merge this kind of changes via the -net tree. No
> repost will be needed. We can merge it as is on -net and you can follow
> the option 2 from the stable kernel rules doc, with no repost nor
> additional mangling for stable will be needed.
> 
> If you are ok with the above let me know.

That sounds good to me, but that will then trigger a merge conflict when
net-next (with the reformat patch) is merged? I guess it's easy enough to
solve, but that would be extra work on your side. If you are fine with
that, it's OK for me.

Thanks,
Andre