Re: [PATCH net v2] net: stmmac: unwind the WoL IRQ after a safety IRQ request failure

On Tue, Oct 6, 2026 at 6:57 PM Andrew Lunn [off-list ref] wrote:

On Tue, Oct 06, 2026 at 05:17:20PM -0600, James Hilliard wrote:

quoted

On Tue, Oct 6, 2026 at 4:52 PM Jakub Kicinski [off-list ref] wrote:

quoted

On Tue, 6 Oct 2026 01:14:52 -0600 James Hilliard wrote:

quoted

quoted

Please do not repost the series just to address the above. Instead,
reply to this email with the missing information, so that reviewers
can take it into account. If the series needs another revision for
other reasons, please include the information in the commit messages
then.

Please make sure you read this paragraph, to the end.

How much detail should I be including?

We want to decide should the patch go to net, because it is a real
problem which bothers somebody. Or is it a theoretical problem which
will never happen, so we might want net-next, or maybe /dev/null.

I mean, it's in an error handling pathway that could be hit if there's
an -ENOMEM error on an IRQ-action allocation. So it's probably
mostly a theoretical issue but I wouldn't go as far as to claim it could
never happen either as there does appear to be a plausible way to
hit it.

Sometimes it is really obvious, things like a:

Reported-by:
Tested-by:

from the same person, makes it clear it should go to net, and it
probably is correct.

If not, a statement like:

Tested on real hardware, regression solved, no other regressions
found.

or

amd64 Compile tested only, probably broken, RFT.

or

New feature tested on real hardware.

Put yourself in our position. You are the Maintainer, what would you
want to read to know it is going to the correct tree.

Do theoretical but still potentially reachable bug fixes go in net or net-next
generally when they haven't been reproduced on real hardware without
an artificial test harness?

I had assumed that since the commit message made it clear that this was
a bug fix and not a new feature then that would be sufficient info to know
which branch it would go in, but I guess it's not quite that simple?

     Andrew