linux-kernel - Re: [RESEND PATCH net-next v4 00/25] net: dpaa: Cleanups in preparation for phylink conversion

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: <583c7997-fb01-63ad-775e-b6a8a8e93566@seco.com>
Date:   Thu, 18 Aug 2022 15:14:04 -0400
From:   Sean Anderson <sean.anderson@...o.com>
To:     Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>
Cc:     "David S . Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
        Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>,
        Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com>, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
        Camelia Groza <camelia.groza@....com>,
        open list <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Madalin Bucur <madalin.bucur@....com>,
        linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org,
        linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
        Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski+dt@...aro.org>,
        Li Yang <leoyang.li@....com>, Rob Herring <robh+dt@...nel.org>,
        devicetree@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RESEND PATCH net-next v4 00/25] net: dpaa: Cleanups in
 preparation for phylink conversion

On 8/18/22 2:58 PM, Jakub Kicinski wrote:
> On Thu, 18 Aug 2022 14:37:23 -0400 Sean Anderson wrote:
>> On 8/18/22 2:20 PM, Jakub Kicinski wrote:
>> > On Thu, 18 Aug 2022 12:16:24 -0400 Sean Anderson wrote:  
>> >> This series contains several cleanup patches for dpaa/fman. While they
>> >> are intended to prepare for a phylink conversion, they stand on their
>> >> own. This series was originally submitted as part of [1].  
>> > 
>> > Still over the limit of patches in a patch series, and looks pretty
>> > easy to chunk up. We review and apply patches in netdev in 1-3 days,
>> > it really is more efficient to post smaller series.   
>> 
>> Last time I offered to arbitrarily chunk things [1], but I did not receive
>> a response for 3 weeks.
> 
> I sent you the link to the rules. Admittedly not the most polite and
> clear feedback to put it mildly but that was the reason.

It would have helped if you'd clarified; I thought the primary thing was
the missing net-next.

>> > And with the other series you sent to the list we have nearly 50
>> > patches from you queued for review. I don't think this is reasonable,
>> > people reviewing this code are all volunteers trying to get their
>> > work done as well :(  
>> 
>> These patches have been sent to the list in one form or another since
>> I first sent out an RFC for DPAA conversion back in June [2]. I have not
>> substantially modified any of them (although I did add a few more
>> since v2). It's not like I came up with these just now; I have been
>> seeking feedback on these series for 2-3 months so far. The only
>> reviews I have gotten were from Camelia Groza, who has provided some
>> helpful feedback.
> 
> Ack, no question. I'm trying to tell you got to actually get stuff in.
> It's the first week after the merge window and people are dumping code
> the had written over the dead time on the list, while some reviewers
> and maintainers are still on their summer vacation. So being
> considerate is even more important than normally.

OK, so perhaps a nice place to split the series is after patch 11. If
you would like to review/apply a set of <15 patches, that is the place
to break things. I can of course resend again with just those, if that's
what I need to do to get these applied.

That said, I specifically broke this series up into many small patches
to make it easier to review. Each patch does exactly one thing. Had I
known about these limits based on patch size, I would have just squashed
everything into 15 patches. I think an arbitrary limit such as this has
a perverse incentive.

--Sean