linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH net v2] r8169: always autoneg on resume

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]

Message-ID: <20181001053304.sf64cx7lhot347yz@scappy>
Date:   Mon, 1 Oct 2018 07:33:04 +0200
From:   Daan Wendelen <daanwendelen@...il.com>
To:     Alex Xu <alex_y_xu@...oo.ca>
Cc:     netdev@...r.kernel.org, hkallweit1@...il.com, nic_swsd@...ltek.com,
        davem@...emloft.net, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH net v2] r8169: always autoneg on resume

On Sun, Sep 30, 2018 at 10:30:58PM +0000, Alex Xu wrote:
> Quoting Daan Wendelen (2018-09-30 22:17:51)
> > Hi Alex,
> > 
> > I randomly opened your patch even though I have absolutely no idea what this patch is about, but I
> > found a mistake in one of the comments:
> > 
> > On Sun, Sep 30, 2018 at 11:06:39AM -0400, Alex Xu (Hello71) wrote:
> > > This affects at least versions 25 and 33, so assume all cards are broken
> >                      ...
> > >        * 1GBit link after resuming from S3. For whatever reason the PHY on
> > > -      * this chip doesn't properly start a renegotiation when soft-reset.
> > > +      * these chips doesn't properly start a renegotiation when soft-reset.
> >                        ~~~~~~~ 
> > I believe it should be "these chips don't"
> > 
> > With kind regards,
> > Daan
> 
> The grammar is correct as is. The subject of the sentence is "the PHY",
> which is singular.

You are right, I misread the patch. I thought that "these chips" was
the subject, but I believe "the PHY on these chips" is the subject.

>  However, I think it should be "the PHYs" instead,
> assuming that they are different.

I can't say.

I say we leave it as it is because the comment will look good enough.