netdev - Re: [Intel-wired-lan] how to submit fixes for i40e/i40evf?

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Sat, 26 Aug 2017 00:28:52 +0200
From:   Stefano Brivio <sbrivio@...hat.com>
To:     Alexander Duyck <alexander.duyck@...il.com>
Cc:     "David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
        Jeff Kirsher <jeffrey.t.kirsher@...el.com>,
        Netdev <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
        intel-wired-lan <intel-wired-lan@...ts.osuosl.org>
Subject: Re: [Intel-wired-lan] how to submit fixes for i40e/i40evf?

On Fri, 25 Aug 2017 15:10:08 -0700
Alexander Duyck <alexander.duyck@...il.com> wrote:

> On Fri, Aug 25, 2017 at 1:52 PM, Stefano Brivio <sbrivio@...hat.com> wrote:
>
> [...]
>
> > Once patches reach Intel's patchwork, will they need to wait for some
> > kind of periodically scheduled pull request process?  
> 
> Once in the patchwork they go through testing and after they have
> passed testing Jeff will try to push them to Dave.

Ok, the whole part above is clear, thanks a lot for clarifying.

> > I don't know if a process is actually defined at this level of detail,
> > but still I feel it's wrong that an obvious fix for a potential crash is
> > waiting in some sort of limbo for 10 days now. Sure, worse things
> > happen in the world, but I can't understand what this patch is waiting
> > for.  
> 
> Well in the case of your patch it was rejected as it didn't apply to
> Jeff's tree

It actually did when I posted it.

> and conflicted with Jacob Keller's patch. He submitted a v2 on Tuesday
> which has only been applied for a few days. Once it receives a
> "Tested-by:"

Which, if I understood correctly, only comes after some internal testing
process, right?

> it will be ready for submission assuming it passes testing.

Now that patch is again in a v2 pull request for net-next, without the
changes I suggested for the commit message. And the same exact code
changes were around for two weeks. IMHO there's room for improvement,
so to speak.

> I hope that helps to clarify things.

It did to some extent, and thanks again for that.


--
Stefano