From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from vps0.lunn.ch (vps0.lunn.ch [156.67.10.101]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 94ABC1862A; Fri, 14 Feb 2025 15:02:19 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=156.67.10.101 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1739545344; cv=none; b=ILgcsxFWijL6ORgs9Y/hiFo2s8qOGMvooemqRHaZAM+oJY9Bcpk1fTXrR7kY1RhigSK7VEB+ALHQExvC8Kr9LxOoY/SJCMo2Gy7ZE4E5C5f1N+dLGzOY2TYgi9pIFcawbdurhxZaNNTg+4xy5sw9925MmG3mJNXvOyINfprPNkI= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1739545344; c=relaxed/simple; bh=c+hKjlXUh3vmeoBXIH+WnhBb2eaR+k7dUrLHl5n3JdU=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:Message-ID:References:MIME-Version: Content-Type:Content-Disposition:In-Reply-To; b=oxDADtzjx1cr434uc8US51fTh0XRMyS+LU99wr9H5Vud0HfR3UhxfKO9DRSgeO7jXjdfnCw9zdVR6TkhRF7j1SqpbruDkbe+J718U08TbEi5lt9Cp3vg/2GggWrGcSDdCa6q0OMcB4Ntsa5wZq/XP9bn3PK8k91wASwT3F3Wrww= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=lunn.ch; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=lunn.ch; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=lunn.ch header.i=@lunn.ch header.b=o8ZCLj+O; arc=none smtp.client-ip=156.67.10.101 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=lunn.ch Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=lunn.ch Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=lunn.ch header.i=@lunn.ch header.b="o8ZCLj+O" DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=lunn.ch; s=20171124; h=In-Reply-To:Content-Disposition:Content-Type:MIME-Version: References:Message-ID:Subject:Cc:To:From:Date:From:Sender:Reply-To:Subject: Date:Message-ID:To:Cc:MIME-Version:Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding: Content-ID:Content-Description:Content-Disposition:In-Reply-To:References; bh=toTGovKSUsy54iHA+P8q9j1fvWiVfvEo6sn+LhC8T38=; b=o8ZCLj+OzfRXjX90B2XHWoFtuf hbb75XpLtIelDiGN/4aerCSC9gmU16Qg1DglvOp+DBgoUYEenVeZfu0mrk3qXFcmxLmRpll0K70gC /enhxbhKvRi7e0vkwfxfiaxbkkdCmGAzjW2E6zxQaVDNwV/IV3C1DW+v8YYD1qiLfVVo=; Received: from andrew by vps0.lunn.ch with local (Exim 4.94.2) (envelope-from ) id 1tixCk-00E6JC-RS; Fri, 14 Feb 2025 16:02:10 +0100 Date: Fri, 14 Feb 2025 16:02:10 +0100 From: Andrew Lunn To: Breno Leitao Cc: "David S. Miller" , Eric Dumazet , Jakub Kicinski , Paolo Abeni , Simon Horman , Nicolas Dichtel , netdev@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next] net: Remove redundant variable declaration in __dev_change_flags() Message-ID: <943abc29-d5af-4064-8853-5f3c365bf6d6@lunn.ch> References: <20250214-old_flags-v1-1-29096b9399a9@debian.org> <1d7e3018-9c82-4a00-8e10-3451b4a19a0d@lunn.ch> <20250214-civet-of-regular-refinement-23b247@leitao> Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20250214-civet-of-regular-refinement-23b247@leitao> > But I agree with you, if you needed to look at it, it means the message > is NOT good enough. I will update it. Thanks. > > > > Fixes: 991fb3f74c142e ("dev: always advertise rx_flags changes via netlink") > > > > I suppose there is also a danger here this code has at some point in > > the past has been refactored, such that the outer old_flags was used > > at some point? Backporting this patch could then break something? Did > > you check for this? Again, a comment in the commit message that you > > have checked this is safe to backport would be nice. > > I haven't look at this, and I don't think this should be backported, > thus, that is why I sent to net-next and didn't cc: stable. > > That said, I don't think this should be backported, since it is not > a big deal. Shouldn't I add the Fixes: in such case? The danger of adding a Fixes: is that the ML bot will see the Fixes: tag and might select it for backporting, even if we did not explicitly queue it up for back porting. So i suggest dropping the tag. Andrew