Re: [PATCH net-next 1/4] net: eth: fbnic: Fix addr validation in pcs write

[Andrew Lunn]

On Wed, Apr 29, 2026 at 06:36:06AM -0400, Mike Marciniszyn wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 28, 2026 at 08:11:30PM +0200, Andrew Lunn wrote:
> > On Tue, Apr 28, 2026 at 01:28:07PM -0400, mike.marciniszyn@xxxxxxxxx wrote:
> > > From: "Mike Marciniszyn (Meta)" <mike.marciniszyn@xxxxxxxxx>
> > >
> > > This patch contains a fix for addr validation in fbnic_mdio_write_pcs().
> > >
> > > Cc: stable@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > > Fixes: d0ce9fd7eae0 ("fbnic: Add SW shim for MDIO interface to PMD and PCS")
> > > Signed-off-by: Mike Marciniszyn (Meta) <mike.marciniszyn@xxxxxxxxx>
> >
> > Please don't mix fixed and going development work in one
> > patchset. They should be applied to different trees, etc.
> >
> > https://www.kernel.org/doc/html/latest/process/maintainer-netdev.html
> >
> >     Andrew
> >
> 
> So I'm guessing I need to send the bug fix to net instead of net-next
> and reissue the patch series?

Correct.

You also have access to some good mentors within Meta, maybe reach out
to them and do internal reviews before posting to netdev?

> BTW, the review notes that the patch wasn't sent to you
> (https://netdev-ctrl.bots.linux.dev/logs/build/1087030/14544928/cc_maintainers/)
> but that is because there are two addresses for you:
> 
> grep Lunn MAINTAINERS
> M:      Andrew Lunn <andrew@xxxxxxx>
> M:      Andrew Lunn <andrew@xxxxxxx>
> M:      Andrew Lunn <andrew@xxxxxxx>
> M:      Andrew Lunn <andrew@xxxxxxx>
> M:      Andrew Lunn <andrew+netdev@xxxxxxx> <----
> M:      Andrew Lunn <andrew@xxxxxxx>
> M:      Andrew Lunn <andrew@xxxxxxx>
> M:      Andrew Lunn <andrew@xxxxxxx>
> M:      Andrew Lunn <andrew@xxxxxxx>
> 
> That seems to foil my scripting.  Is MAINTAINERS wrong?

No. The +netdev helps procmail separate traffic between run of the
mill netdev deluge, and email specifically for me, so they go into
different mailboxes.

	  Andrew