linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 0/2] net: dsa: mv88e6xxx: fix vlan filtering for 6250

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]

Message-ID: <20210118130816.19e7d50d@kicinski-fedora-pc1c0hjn.dhcp.thefacebook.com>
Date:   Mon, 18 Jan 2021 13:08:16 -0800
From:   Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>
To:     Rasmus Villemoes <rasmus.villemoes@...vas.dk>
Cc:     Vladimir Oltean <olteanv@...il.com>, Andrew Lunn <andrew@...n.ch>,
        Vivien Didelot <vivien.didelot@...il.com>,
        Florian Fainelli <f.fainelli@...il.com>,
        "David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
        Russell King <linux@...linux.org.uk>, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        Tobias Waldekranz <tobias@...dekranz.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/2] net: dsa: mv88e6xxx: fix vlan filtering for 6250

On Mon, 18 Jan 2021 14:22:57 +0100 Rasmus Villemoes wrote:
> On 17/01/2021 22.08, Vladimir Oltean wrote:
> > Hi Rasmus,
> > 
> > On Sat, Jan 16, 2021 at 03:39:34AM +0100, Rasmus Villemoes wrote:  
> >> I finally managed to figure out why enabling VLAN filtering on the
> >> 6250 broke all (ingressing) traffic,
> >> cf. https://lore.kernel.org/netdev/6424c14e-bd25-2a06-cf0b-f1a07f9a3604@prevas.dk/
> >> .
> >>
> >> The first patch is the minimal fix and for net, while the second one
> >> is a little cleanup for net-next.
> >>
> >> Rasmus Villemoes (2):
> >>   net: dsa: mv88e6xxx: also read STU state in mv88e6250_g1_vtu_getnext
> >>   net: dsa: mv88e6xxx: use mv88e6185_g1_vtu_getnext() for the 6250  
> > 
> > It's strange to put a patch for net and one for net-next in the same
> > series.   
> 
> Well, maybe, but one is a logical continuation of the other, and
> including the second one preempted review comments saying "why don't you
> merge the two implementations".
> 
> > But is there any reason why you don't just apply the second patch to
> > "net"?  
> 
> That's not really for me to decide? I thought net was just for the
> things that needed fixing and should be sent to -stable - which is the
> only reason I even split this in two, so there's a minimal logical fix
> for the 6250. Otherwise I'd just have squashed the two, so that I don't
> add lines only to delete them, along with the rest of the function, later.
> 
> Jakub, David, it's up to you.

Vladimir is right, this is a strange way to post things. In the future
please send just the "net" changes first and include a note in the
cover letter or under "---" saying something like "cleanup of XYZ is
left for a followup in -next".

I've applied patch 1 please resend the cleanup after net->net-next
merge (~Friday).

Thanks!