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

[James Hilliard]

On Tue, Oct 6, 2026 at 6:57 PM Andrew Lunn <andrew@xxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> On Tue, Oct 06, 2026 at 05:17:20PM -0600, James Hilliard wrote:
> > On Tue, Oct 6, 2026 at 4:52 PM Jakub Kicinski <kuba@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > >
> > > On Tue, 6 Oct 2026 01:14:52 -0600 James Hilliard wrote:
> > > > > 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
>
>