在 2021/4/2 16:07, Ferruh Yigit 写道:
On 4/2/2021 2:45 AM, Min Hu (Connor) wrote:
在 2021/4/1 22:45, Ferruh Yigit 写道:
On 4/1/2021 9:53 AM, Min Hu (Connor) wrote:
According to the suggestion of our legal department,
to standardize the copyright license of our code to
avoid potential copyright risks, we make a unified
modification to the "Hisilicon", which was nonstandard,
in the main modules we maintain.
We change it to "HiSilicon", which is consistent with
the terms used on the following official website:
https://www.hisilicon.com/en/terms-of-use.
Fixes: 565829db8b8f ("net/hns3: add build and doc infrastructure")
Fixes: 952ebacce4f2 ("net/hns3: support SVE Rx")
Fixes: e31f123db06b ("net/hns3: support NEON Tx")
Fixes: c09c7847d892 ("net/hns3: support traffic management")
Is backport not requested intentionally?
Yes, we think this is just spelling bug, which does not affect
functionality, so there is no need to backport.
By the way, Is there any standard for which patch should be backported?
We are backporting fixes, unless the fix doesn't apply to an old version
somehow, like some patches fixes problems coming from external
components, like problem comes with new version of FW that is not used
by LTS code etc..., these doesn't need to be backported to old versions.
Personally I am for backporting as much as possible, even syntax
changes, because in long term they may cause conflicts and cause trouble
merging actual fixes. Also for someone who gets a diff between latest
and LTS version code, it helps to reduce the noise.
Agree with you, done in v2, thanks.
cc'ed LTS maintainers for more authoritative response, at the end of the
day they get the patches to the stable trees.
Signed-off-by: Min Hu (Connor) <humi...@huawei.com>
<...>
.
.
