Re: [PATCH net-next] r8152: add vendor/device ID pair for Microsoft Devkit

[Paolo Abeni]

On Thu, 2023-01-12 at 11:56 +0000, Andre Przywara wrote:
> On Thu, 12 Jan 2023 12:39:01 +0100
> Paolo Abeni <pabeni@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> 
> Hi,
> 
> > On Thu, 2023-01-12 at 10:51 +0000, Andre Przywara wrote:
> > > On Wed, 11 Jan 2023 21:31:43 -0800 Jakub Kicinski <kuba@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:  
> > > > Hm, we have a patch in net-next which reformats the entries:
> > > > ec51fbd1b8a2bca2948dede99c14ec63dc57ff6b
> > > > 
> > > > Would you like this ID to be also added in stable? We could just 
> > > > apply it to net, and deal with the conflict locally. But if you 
> > > > don't care about older kernels then better if you rebase.  
> > > 
> > > Stable would be nice, but only to v6.1. I think I don't care
> > > about older kernels.
> > > So what about if I resend this one here, based on top of the reformat
> > > patch, with a:
> > > Cc: <stable@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> # 6.1.x
> > > line in there, and then reply to the email that the automatic backport
> > > failed, with a tailored patch for v6.1?
> > > Alternatively I can send an explicit stable backport email once this one
> > > is merged.  
> > 
> > Note that we can merge this kind of changes via the -net tree. No
> > repost will be needed. We can merge it as is on -net and you can follow
> > the option 2 from the stable kernel rules doc, with no repost nor
> > additional mangling for stable will be needed.
> > 
> > If you are ok with the above let me know.
> 
> That sounds good to me, but that will then trigger a merge conflict when
> net-next (with the reformat patch) is merged? I guess it's easy enough to
> solve, but that would be extra work on your side. If you are fine with
> that, it's OK for me.

Fine by us (well, probably poor Jakub will end-up handling the
conflict, but AFAIK he is ok with this specific case).

I'll merge the patch on net.

Cheers,

Paolo