linux-kernel - RE: [PATCH net-next 0/8] net: dsa: microchip: DSA driver support for LAN937x switch

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:   Tue, 2 Feb 2021 01:25:51 +0000
From:   <Woojung.Huh@...rochip.com>
To:     <f.fainelli@...il.com>,
        <Prasanna.VengateshanVaradharajan@...rochip.com>, <andrew@...n.ch>,
        <olteanv@...il.com>, <netdev@...r.kernel.org>, <robh+dt@...nel.org>
CC:     <kuba@...nel.org>, <vivien.didelot@...il.com>,
        <davem@...emloft.net>, <UNGLinuxDriver@...rochip.com>,
        <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, <devicetree@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: RE: [PATCH net-next 0/8] net: dsa: microchip: DSA driver support for
 LAN937x switch

Hi Florian,

Wish you a happy and safe new year.

Thanks for your time to review new patches.
 > It is great to see a new switch from Microchip being submitted for
> review. One thing that has bothered me as a DSA maintainer before though
> is that we have seen Microchip contribute new DSA drivers which are
> always welcome, however the maintenance and bug fixing of these drivers
> was spotty, thus leading to external contributors to take on the tasks
> of fixing bugs. Do you have a stronger commitment now to stay involved
> with reviewing/fixing bugs affecting Microchip DSA drivers and to a
> larger extent the framework itself?
Admit that Microchip's activities on community, especially on DSA drivers, 
was not active for a while.  We are going to do our best to get involved more
on community including reviewing and frameworks. You might already start
seeing review and comments on community from Microchip recently.
 
> Could you also feed back to your hardware organization to settle on a
> tag format that is not a snowflake? Almost *every* switch you have has a
> different tagging format, this is absurd. All other vendors in tree have
> been able to settle on at most 2 or 3 different tagging formats over
> their switching product life span (for some vendors this dates back 20
> years ago).
Understand this point too. Actually, those products are developed over time.
Sometime it is not avoidable to add new stuff.
But, Yes, it would be better to design ahead with reserved fields.

Thanks again on your reviews and comments, will gear up on DSA works.

Best Regards,
Woojung