Hi Greg,
On 12/12/24 12:24, Greg KH wrote: ...
Fixes: 0c4dcd602817 ("RDMA/bnxt_re: Refactor hardware queue memory allocation") Signed-off-by: Michal Schmidt mschmidt@redhat.com Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20240507103929.30003-1-mschmidt@redhat.com Acked-by: Selvin Xavier selvin.xavier@broadcom.com Signed-off-by: Leon Romanovsky leon@kernel.org Signed-off-by: Xiangyu Chen xiangyu.chen@windriver.com Signed-off-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman gregkh@linuxfoundation.org
I have not signed off on this backport, why did you add this here? You do know what this is saying right?
Note: I think Guocai cherry-picked 6.1.y commit: (probable reason for your SOB and Xiangyu Chen's SOB there)
stable-6.1 : v6.1.117 - 84d2f2915218 bnxt_re: avoid shift undefined behavior in bnxt_qplib_alloc_init_hwq
This clean cherry-picks to 5.15.y
Question: In cases like this where we benefit from cherry-picking a commit from another stable branch as opposed to upstream commit(if we used original upstream for cherry-picking, we would get conflicts and probably have to resolve in the same way as we did for 6.1.y], how do we differentiate that in commit message ? May be with a comment before SOB [ Harshit: Cherry-picked it from 6.1.y branch, it is a clean cherry-pick], as per Option 3 documented in [1], the first line (commit 78cfd17142ef70599d6409cbd709d94b3da58659 upstream) should still point to upstream commit right ?
[1] https://www.kernel.org/doc/html/v6.12/process/stable-kernel-rules.html
Thanks, Harshit
Please work with your other kernel developers at your company for you all to come up with a better workflow for doing all of these backports. What you are doing here now just isn't working for us at all, sorry.
greg k-h