Message-ID: <056934c443a57293f925d8f18f603b6ec76b91db.camel@redhat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net] net: dsa: mt7530: don't change PVC_EG_TAG when CPU
 port becomes VLAN-aware
From:   Paolo Abeni <pabeni@redhat.com>
To:     Vladimir Oltean <vladimir.oltean@nxp.com>
Cc:     =?UTF-8?Q?Ar=C4=B1n=C3=A7_=C3=9CNAL?= <arinc.unal@arinc9.com>,
        netdev@vger.kernel.org, "David S. Miller" <davem@davemloft.net>,
        Eric Dumazet <edumazet@google.com>,
        Jakub Kicinski <kuba@kernel.org>,
        Sean Wang <sean.wang@mediatek.com>,
        Landen Chao <Landen.Chao@mediatek.com>,
        DENG Qingfang <dqfext@gmail.com>, Andrew Lunn <andrew@lunn.ch>,
        Florian Fainelli <f.fainelli@gmail.com>,
        Matthias Brugger <matthias.bgg@gmail.com>,
        AngeloGioacchino Del Regno 
        <angelogioacchino.delregno@collabora.com>,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org,
        linux-mediatek@lists.infradead.org,
        Frank Wunderlich <frank-w@public-files.de>,
        erkin.bozoglu@xeront.com, richard@routerhints.com
Date:   Tue, 07 Feb 2023 19:07:14 +0100
In-Reply-To: <20230207123952.r2r7tnama3vcr7vt@skbuf>
References: <20230205140713.1609281-1-vladimir.oltean@nxp.com>
         <3649b6f9-a028-8eaf-ac89-c4d0fce412da@arinc9.com>
         <20230205203906.i3jci4pxd6mw74in@skbuf>
         <b055e42f-ff0f-d05a-d462-961694b035c1@arinc9.com>
         <20230205235053.g5cttegcdsvh7uk3@skbuf>
         <116ff532-4ebc-4422-6599-1d5872ff9eb8@arinc9.com>
         <20230206174627.mv4ljr4gtkpr7w55@skbuf>
         <c4c90e6576f1bc4ef9d634edda5862c5f003ae3c.camel@redhat.com>
         <20230207123952.r2r7tnama3vcr7vt@skbuf>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
User-Agent: Evolution 3.46.3 (3.46.3-1.fc37) 
MIME-Version: 1.0
Precedence: bulk

On Tue, 2023-02-07 at 14:39 +0200, Vladimir Oltean wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 07, 2023 at 11:56:13AM +0100, Paolo Abeni wrote:
> > Thank you Vladimir for the quick turn-around!=20
> >=20
> > For future case, please avoid replying with new patches - tag area
> > included - to existing patch/thread, as it confuses tag propagation,
> > thanks!
>=20
> Ah, yes, I see (and thanks for fixing it up).
>=20
> Although I need to ask, since I think I made legitimate use of the tools
> given to me. What should I have done instead? Post an RFC patch (even
> though I didn't know whether it worked or not) in a thread separate to
> the debugging session? I didn't want to diverge from the thread reporting
> the issue. Maybe we should have started a new thread, decoupled from the
> patch?

Here what specifically confused the bot were the additional tags
present in the debug patch. One possible alternative would have been
posting - in the same thread - the code of the tentative patch without
the formal commit message/tag area.

That option is quite convenient toome, as writing the changelog takes
me a measurable amount of time and I could spend that effort only when
the patch is finalize/tested.

Please let me know if the above makes sense to you.

Cheers,

Paolo