netdev - Re: [Intel-wired-lan] [PATCH iwl-next v4 0/7] Add PFCP filter support

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date: Tue, 19 Dec 2023 10:04:02 +0100
From: Alexander Lobakin <aleksander.lobakin@...el.com>
To: Alexander Potapenko <glider@...gle.com>, Yury Norov <yury.norov@...il.com>
CC: Marcin Szycik <marcin.szycik@...ux.intel.com>, Jakub Kicinski
	<kuba@...nel.org>, <davem@...emloft.net>, Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>,
	<pabeni@...hat.com>, Tony Nguyen <anthony.l.nguyen@...el.com>,
	<michal.swiatkowski@...ux.intel.com>, <wojciech.drewek@...el.com>,
	<idosch@...dia.com>, <jesse.brandeburg@...el.com>,
	<intel-wired-lan@...ts.osuosl.org>, <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
	<jiri@...nulli.us>
Subject: Re: [Intel-wired-lan] [PATCH iwl-next v4 0/7] Add PFCP filter support

From: Alexander Potapenko <glider@...gle.com>
Date: Mon, 18 Dec 2023 17:16:09 +0100

> On Mon, Dec 18, 2023 at 4:57 PM Yury Norov <yury.norov@...il.com> wrote:
>>
>> + Alexander Potapenko
>>
>> On Mon, Dec 18, 2023 at 01:47:01PM +0100, Alexander Lobakin wrote:

[...]

>>> Hey Yury,
>>>
>>> Given that PFCP will be resent in the next window...
>>>
>>> Your "boys" tree is in fact self-contained -- those are mostly
>>> optimizations and cleanups, and for the new API -- bitmap_{read,write}()
>>> -- it has internal users (after "bitmap: make bitmap_{get,set}_value8()
>>> use bitmap_{read,write}()"). IOW, I don't see a reason for not merging
>>> it into your main for-next tree (this week :p).
>>> What do you think?
>>
>> I think that there's already enough mess with this patch. Alexander
>> submitted new version of his MTE series together with the patch.
> 
> Yeah, sorry about that. Because the MTE part of the patches was still
> awaiting review, I thought it would be better to land the bitmap API
> separately, but as you pointed out there should be at least one user
> for it, which it wouldn't have in that case.
> 
> I don't have a strong preference about whether to submit the patches
> before or after the end of year - in fact I don't think they are
> urgent enough, and we'd better postpone them till January.
> 
> So unless Alexander has urgent fixes depending on my bitmap patches,
> I'd suggest waiting till they are taken via the arm64 tree.

No, nothing urgent. Sounds good, no need to rush at the end of the dev
cycle.

> 
>> https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/ZXtciaxTKFBiui%2FX@yury-ThinkPad/T/
>>
>> Now you're asking me to merge it separately. I don't want to undercut
>> arm64 folks.
>>
>> Can you guys decide what you want? If you want to move
>> bitmap_read/write() with my branch, I need to send it in -next for
>> testing ASAP. And for that, as I already said, I need at least one
>> active user in current kernel tree. (Yes, bitmap_get_value8() counts.)
>>
>> If you want to move it this way, please resend all the patches
>> together.

[...]

Thanks,
Olek