Re: [PATCH net-next 1/2] net: lan966x: cleanup lan966x_tc_flower_handler_control_usage()

["Asbjørn Sloth Tønnesen" <ast@fiberby.net>]

Hi Simon,

On 4/23/24 2:00 PM, Simon Horman wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 23, 2024 at 10:27:17AM +0000, Asbjørn Sloth Tønnesen wrote:
>> Define extack locally, to reduce line lengths and future users.
>>
>> Rename goto, as the error message is specific to the fragment flags.
>>
>> Only compile-tested.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Asbjørn Sloth Tønnesen <ast@fiberby.net>
> 
> Hi Asbjørn,
> 
> This patch-set did not apply to net-next at the time it was posted
> (although it does now), so it will need to be reposted.

Weird, patchwork incorrectly matched up the two series. I had
rebased shortly before posting (net-next was at 077633afe07f4).

The 4 emails and their Subject, Message-ID and In-Reply-To:

Subject: [PATCH net-next 1/2] net: sparx5: flower: cleanup sparx5_tc_flower_handler_control_usage()
Message-ID: <20240423102728.228765-1-ast@fiberby.net>  (A)

Subject: [PATCH net-next 2/2] net: sparx5: flower: check for unsupported control flags
Message-ID: <20240423102728.228765-2-ast@fiberby.net>  (B)
In-Reply-To: <20240423102728.228765-1-ast@fiberby.net> (A)

Subject: [PATCH net-next 1/2] net: lan966x: cleanup lan966x_tc_flower_handler_control_usage()
Message-ID: <20240423102720.228728-1-ast@fiberby.net>  (C)

Subject: [PATCH net-next 2/2] net: lan966x: flower: check for unsupported control flags
Message-ID: <20240423102720.228728-2-ast@fiberby.net>  (D)
In-Reply-To: <20240423102720.228728-1-ast@fiberby.net> (C)

Patchwork have two series A+D and C+B, instead of A+B and C+D.

> Also, please consider providing a cover-letter for patch-sets with
> more than one (but not just one) patch.

Sure, will do. Didn't know if it was appreciated for so small series,
anyway v2 will have more patches, after splitting this patch up.

-- 
Best regards
Asbjørn Sloth Tønnesen
Network Engineer
Fiberby - AS42541