From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-7.7 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,FREEMAIL_FORGED_FROMDOMAIN,FREEMAIL_FROM, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,INCLUDES_CR_TRAILER,MAILING_LIST_MULTI, SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS,URIBL_BLOCKED autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id ADDCFC4320A for ; Fri, 6 Aug 2021 20:34:53 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 959C261040 for ; Fri, 6 Aug 2021 20:34:53 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S231971AbhHFUfH (ORCPT ); Fri, 6 Aug 2021 16:35:07 -0400 Received: from lindbergh.monkeyblade.net ([23.128.96.19]:55894 "EHLO lindbergh.monkeyblade.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S231132AbhHFUfD (ORCPT ); Fri, 6 Aug 2021 16:35:03 -0400 Received: from mail-oo1-xc34.google.com (mail-oo1-xc34.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::c34]) by lindbergh.monkeyblade.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 53498C0613CF; Fri, 6 Aug 2021 13:34:46 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-oo1-xc34.google.com with SMTP id f33-20020a4a89240000b029027c19426fbeso2537708ooi.8; Fri, 06 Aug 2021 13:34:46 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=PdU525+p8u4WlJJnfxi3e93iSDWBs8v/I5isoPxGs/g=; b=mLJJiYq6nWsCgdDuZsSmSx6HgFgexd5N+2N0Xp6qwwBlCq8y9/0mSHKm1Bf4JRQJ0A f307s7C3tP8oVIc73N32y6V/YL0K9ebmUWBueaqpRpogl+yoZ/089xsTIyBl2+wleKmk aZ3+oPPEOCBQ6HdXxRZFSoPUNb+vb5lYK5s84lQBEwg6XR5fo1DcpLXd/yXiXZUi19wt mc7hDTV1To1tGpp0lxpQd+RaNxuUvpIGdpxxj/9o0b9SvpIvtrdbADjyikuNhs9fUaHQ gn8Lpe9oWoTQfxlYOKfJjUf8MG2Bwj5EzfH6xK/PnH7v3V8SS3uebEUmOv3TRxkwLRpj z5oQ== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=PdU525+p8u4WlJJnfxi3e93iSDWBs8v/I5isoPxGs/g=; b=OfcmecTKI0La4RhGYvbi8s3nXuWiCl/GMh7TRi/C234QQrAfuoNgsu85q5FkjK8oOu HQZ2ShH+L4hczsir2YE5hb1yoqdduoWsMsD9bcRPEphzvzrWz33kLxgPCfHxJ8vUQIjm zrSOY59pmiDSd4u9hFxRDWMCvj8Z31Si0zpf2b1inlEnUcUbQ9S9Xm3WTKe0C9nP/3+z g7WC3H8JWdeq5QDPffFV97bVO/M/qBI+WTbHW75otOCVKxQw56Xb6yUjJbDytB0K22qt fgvqWayHlzG08XSKj6iTuZYvo8pu8UWXydtR57f/hqHG65P+oFfDA2hfzyykbOs9KKSW wtdg== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM532y988zU6ob/BUO8tyrbaknrCOm5Ms5xxmMdUMga7W1TyHSlOZ3 bifbdc6G0nUW3X4eGU2haoME2LuhzCIkMDHMFh4= X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJy9BJ9xeLMVu/ecPOM5rYB2iEef65Xt9WnL3i2JVuWOL/6P+VLREXcpDr8hFn3Z5fwAclheUhg0jb9RbgPye/o= X-Received: by 2002:a4a:cf07:: with SMTP id l7mr7893206oos.11.1628282085678; Fri, 06 Aug 2021 13:34:45 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <20210806085413.61536-1-andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com> <20210806085413.61536-2-andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com> In-Reply-To: From: Sergey Ryazanov Date: Fri, 6 Aug 2021 23:35:04 +0300 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 2/2] wwan: core: Unshadow error code returned by ida_alloc_range)) To: Andy Shevchenko Cc: Andy Shevchenko , "David S. Miller" , netdev , open list , Loic Poulain , Johannes Berg , Jakub Kicinski Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Fri, Aug 6, 2021 at 5:20 PM Andy Shevchenko wrote: > On Fri, Aug 6, 2021 at 5:14 PM Sergey Ryazanov wrote: >> On Fri, Aug 6, 2021 at 12:00 PM Andy Shevchenko >> wrote: >>> ida_alloc_range)) may return other than -ENOMEM error code. >>> Unshadow it in the wwan_create_port(). >>> >>> Signed-off-by: Andy Shevchenko >> >> A small nitpick, looks like "ida_alloc_range))" in the description is >> a typo and should be "ida_alloc_range()". Besides this: > > Shall I resend? Yes, please. And specify the target tree in the subject, please. See patchwork warning [1, 2]. The first patch is a clear bug fix, so it should be targeted to the 'net' tree, while the second patch despite its usefulness could not be considered a bug fix, so it should be targeted to the 'net-next' tree. Subjects could be like this: [PATCHv3 net 1/2] wwan: core: Avoid returning NULL from wwan_create_dev() [PATCHv3 net-next 2/2] wwan: core: Unshadow error code returned by ida_alloc_range() Or since the second patch is not depends on the first one and patches target different trees, patches could be submitted independently: [PATCHv3 net] wwan: core: Avoid returning NULL from wwan_create_dev() [PATCHv3 net-next] wwan: core: Unshadow error code returned by ida_alloc_range() 1. https://patchwork.kernel.org/project/netdevbpf/patch/20210806085413.61536-1-andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com/ 2. https://patchwork.kernel.org/project/netdevbpf/patch/20210806085413.61536-2-andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com/ -- Sergey