> On Tue, Mar 18, 2025 at 06:47:11AM +0200, Wei Fang wrote: > > > These rxnfc commands seem implemented identically to the corresponding > > > subset from enetc_get_rxnfc(). Rather than duplicating those, could you > > > rather return -EOPNOTSUPP for the unsupported ones on NETC v4, and > reuse > > > enetc_get_rxnfc()? > > > > > > > I have explained it to Jakub in v2: > > > https://lore.kernel.org/imx/PAXPR04MB8510B52B7D27640C557680B4881A2 > @PAXPR04MB8510.eurprd04.prod.outlook.com/ > > > > So I don't want to reuse it for ENETC v4 PF. > > A detail of the review process, written in > Documentation/process/6.Followthrough.rst, > is that "Andrew Morton has suggested that every review comment which does > not result in a code change should result in an additional code comment > instead; that can help future reviewers avoid the questions which came > up the first time around." > > [ personal mention: it doesn't have to be a code comment but can also be > a sentence in the commit message ] > > I believe that it would be good if you could apply that suggestion for > future submissions (not only for this particular comment).
Okay, good to know this info, I will add a comments here.
