Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.35 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.35;
Date:   Tue, 3 Oct 2023 18:31:28 -0700
From:   Yury Norov <yury.norov@gmail.com>
To:     Jakub Kicinski <kuba@kernel.org>
Cc:     Paolo Abeni <pabeni@redhat.com>, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        netdev@vger.kernel.org, linux-rdma@vger.kernel.org,
        Tariq Toukan <ttoukan.linux@gmail.com>,
        Valentin Schneider <vschneid@redhat.com>,
        Maher Sanalla <msanalla@nvidia.com>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>, Mel Gorman <mgorman@suse.de>,
        Saeed Mahameed <saeedm@nvidia.com>,
        Leon Romanovsky <leon@kernel.org>,
        "David S. Miller" <davem@davemloft.net>,
        Eric Dumazet <edumazet@google.com>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
        Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@redhat.com>,
        Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@linaro.org>,
        Dietmar Eggemann <dietmar.eggemann@arm.com>,
        Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>,
        Ben Segall <bsegall@google.com>,
        Daniel Bristot de Oliveira <bristot@redhat.com>,
        Pawel Chmielewski <pawel.chmielewski@intel.com>,
        Jacob Keller <jacob.e.keller@intel.com>,
        Yury Norov <ynorov@nvidia.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/4] net: mellanox: drop mlx5_cpumask_default_spread()
Message-ID: <ZRzAcJInEJtYuOKi@yury-ThinkPad>
References: <20230925020528.777578-1-yury.norov@gmail.com>
 <20230925020528.777578-2-yury.norov@gmail.com>
 <2fd12c42d3dd60b2e9b56e9f7dd37d5f994fd9ac.camel@redhat.com>
 <ZRwbKRnnKY/tDqCF@yury-ThinkPad>
 <20231003152030.6615437c@kernel.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20231003152030.6615437c@kernel.org>
Precedence: bulk

On Tue, Oct 03, 2023 at 03:20:30PM -0700, Jakub Kicinski wrote:
> On Tue, 3 Oct 2023 06:46:17 -0700 Yury Norov wrote:
> > Can you elaborate on the conflicts you see? For me it applies cleanly
> > on current master, and with some 3-way merging on latest -next...
> 
> We're half way thru the release cycle the conflicts can still come in.
> 
> There's no dependency for the first patch. The most normal way to
> handle this would be to send patch 1 to the networking tree and send
> the rest in the subsequent merge window.

Ah, I understand now. I didn't plan to move it in current merge
window. In fact, I'll be more comfortable to keep it in -next for
longer and merge it in v6.7.

But it's up to you. If you think it's better, I can resend 1st patch
separately.

Thanks,
Yury