Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel+bounces-52740-linux.lists.archive=gmail.com@vger.kernel.org designates 2604:1380:45e3:2400::1 as permitted sender) client-ip=2604:1380:45e3:2400::1;
Date: Mon, 5 Feb 2024 14:41:46 +0100
From: Andrew Lunn <andrew@lunn.ch>
To: Lee Jones <lee@kernel.org>
Cc: Christian Marangi <ansuelsmth@gmail.com>, Pavel Machek <pavel@ucw.cz>,
	"David S. Miller" <davem@davemloft.net>,
	Jakub Kicinski <kuba@kernel.org>,
	Heiner Kallweit <hkallweit1@gmail.com>,
	Daniel Golle <daniel@makrotopia.org>,
	Li Zetao <lizetao1@huawei.com>, linux-leds@vger.kernel.org,
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, stable@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] leds: trigger: netdev: Fix kernel panic on interface
 rename trig notify
Message-ID: <2cf84815-f9b6-4a0a-a3b4-d23628a89aa4@lunn.ch>
References: <20240203235413.1146-1-ansuelsmth@gmail.com>
 <8d51f09b-e6d2-4ee1-9e7d-b545d561798a@lunn.ch>
 <20240205085007.GA19855@google.com>
Precedence: bulk
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20240205085007.GA19855@google.com>

> > This should have 'net' in the subject line, to indicate which tree its
> > for.
> 
> No, it shouldn't.
> 
> Contributors aren't obliged to know anything about merging strategies.

With netdev, we tend to assume they do, or at least can contribute to
the discussion. They often know about any dependencies etc which could
influence the decision. When there are multiple subsystem maintainers
involved, i tend to use To: to indicate the maintainer i think should
merge the patch, and Cc: for the rest.

> Why does this need to go in via net?

It does not, as far as i'm aware. Christian, do you know of any
reason?

	Andrew