Hi Jakub,
On 10/12/2021 15:56, Jakub Kicinski wrote:
On Fri, 10 Dec 2021 06:54:37 -0800 Jakub Kicinski wrote:
On Fri, 10 Dec 2021 10:58:27 +0100 Matthieu Baerts wrote:
Hi Ye,
On 10/12/2021 08:14, cgel.zte@gmail.com wrote:
From: Ye Guojin ye.guojin@zte.com.cn
'sys/ioctl.h' included in 'mptcp_inq.c' is duplicated.
Good catch, the modification looks good to me:
Reviewed-by: Matthieu Baerts matthieu.baerts@tessares.net
This patch is for "net-next" tree as it fixes an issue introduced by a patch only in this tree:
Fixes: b51880568f20 ("selftests: mptcp: add inq test case")
Regarding the commit message, please next time include the Fixes tag and mention for which tree it is for in the FAQ [1], e.g. [PATCH net-next].
@David/Jakub: do you prefer a v2 with these modifications or is it fine to apply this small patch directly in net-next tree?
v1 is fine. Let me apply it right away and do the edits before I forget they are needed..
Thank you!
Actually, I take that back, let's hear from Mat, he may want to take the patch via his tree.
We "rebase" our tree on top of net-next every night. I think for such small patches with no behaviour change and sent directly to netdev ML, it is probably best to apply them directly. I can check with Mat if it is an issue if you prefer.
I would have applied it in our MPTCP tree if we were sending PR, not to bother you for such patches but I guess it is best not to have us sending this patch a second time later :)
BTW, if you prefer us sending PR over batches of patches, please tell us!
Cheers, Matt