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

[Andrew Lunn]

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.

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.

     Andrew