linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH net 2/2] net: dsa: microchip: lan937x: run phy initialization during each link update

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: <7d72bc330d0ce9e57cc862bec39388b7def8782a.camel@microchip.com>
Date:   Thu, 19 Jan 2023 11:34:00 +0000
From:   <Rakesh.Sankaranarayanan@...rochip.com>
To:     <olteanv@...il.com>, <andrew@...n.ch>
CC:     <davem@...emloft.net>, <pabeni@...hat.com>, <hkallweit1@...il.com>,
        <Arun.Ramadoss@...rochip.com>, <Woojung.Huh@...rochip.com>,
        <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, <linux@...linux.org.uk>,
        <f.fainelli@...il.com>, <kuba@...nel.org>, <edumazet@...gle.com>,
        <UNGLinuxDriver@...rochip.com>, <netdev@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net 2/2] net: dsa: microchip: lan937x: run phy
 initialization during each link update

Hi Vladimir,
Thanks for the comments.

> 1. Don't prefix a patch with "net: dsa: microchip: " unless it
> touches
>    the drivers/net/dsa/microchip/ folder.
> 
> 2. Don't make unrelated patches on different drivers part of the same
>    patch set.
> 
I will update the patch in next revision.

> 3. AFAIU, this is the second fixup of a feature which never worked
> well
>    (changing master/slave setting through ethtool). Not sure exactly
>    what are the rules, but at some point, maintainers might say
>    "hey, let go, this never worked, just send your fixes to net-
> next".
>    I mean: (1) fixes of fixes of smth that never worked can't be sent
> ad
>    infinitum, especially if not small and (2) there needs to be some
>    incentive to submit code that actually works and was tested,
> rather
>    than a placeholder which can be fixed up later, right? In this
> case,
>    I'm not sure, this seems borderline net-next. Let's see what the
> PHY
>    library maintainers think.
> 

Thanks for pointing this out. Do you think submitting this patch in
net-next is the right way?

@andrew,
Do you have any thoughts on this?

Thanks,
Rakesh S.