Re: [PATCH v5 1/3] can: length: fix bitstuffing count

[Marc Kleine-Budde]

On 15.06.2023 18:58:04, Vincent MAILHOL wrote:
> > Lastly, I'm not a CAN maintainer. But I think it's usual to separate
> > fixes and enhancements into different series, likely the former
> > targeting the can tree while the latter targets the can-next tree
> > (I could be way off here).
> 
> Hmm... The fact is that only the first two patches are fixes. The
> third one is not.  The fixes being really minor, there is no urgency.
> So I was thinking of having the full series go to the next branch and
> as long as there is the Fix: tag, the two first patches will
> eventually be picked by the stable team. I thought that this approach
> was easier than sending two fixes to the stable branch, wait for these
> to propagate to next and then send a second series of a single patch
> for next.
> 
> @Marc, let me know what you prefer. I am fine to split if this works
> best for you. Also, I will wait for your answer before doing any
> resend.
> 
> > If on the other hand, the patches in this series are not bug fixes,
> > then it is probably best to drop the 'fixes' language.
> 
> I will keep the Fix tags. Even if minor (probably no visible
> repercussions) it still fixes an existing inaccuracy (whether you call
> it bug or not is another debate, but I often see typo fixes being
> backported, and these are a bit more than a typo fix).

I've taken the whole series as is to linux-can-next.

Thanks,
Marc

-- 
Pengutronix e.K.                 | Marc Kleine-Budde          |
Embedded Linux                   | https://www.pengutronix.de |
Vertretung Nürnberg              | Phone: +49-5121-206917-129 |
Amtsgericht Hildesheim, HRA 2686 | Fax:   +49-5121-206917-9   |

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: PGP signature