linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH net] net: dsa: mt7530: don't change PVC_EG

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, 07 Feb 2023 19:07:14 +0100
From:   Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com>
To:     Vladimir Oltean <vladimir.oltean@....com>
Cc:     Arınç ÜNAL <arinc.unal@...nc9.com>,
        netdev@...r.kernel.org, "David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
        Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>,
        Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>,
        Sean Wang <sean.wang@...iatek.com>,
        Landen Chao <Landen.Chao@...iatek.com>,
        DENG Qingfang <dqfext@...il.com>, Andrew Lunn <andrew@...n.ch>,
        Florian Fainelli <f.fainelli@...il.com>,
        Matthias Brugger <matthias.bgg@...il.com>,
        AngeloGioacchino Del Regno 
        <angelogioacchino.delregno@...labora.com>,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
        linux-mediatek@...ts.infradead.org,
        Frank Wunderlich <frank-w@...lic-files.de>,
        erkin.bozoglu@...ont.com, richard@...terhints.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH net] net: dsa: mt7530: don't change PVC_EG_TAG when CPU
 port becomes VLAN-aware

On Tue, 2023-02-07 at 14:39 +0200, Vladimir Oltean wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 07, 2023 at 11:56:13AM +0100, Paolo Abeni wrote:
> > Thank you Vladimir for the quick turn-around! 
> > 
> > For future case, please avoid replying with new patches - tag area
> > included - to existing patch/thread, as it confuses tag propagation,
> > thanks!
> 
> Ah, yes, I see (and thanks for fixing it up).
> 
> Although I need to ask, since I think I made legitimate use of the tools
> given to me. What should I have done instead? Post an RFC patch (even
> though I didn't know whether it worked or not) in a thread separate to
> the debugging session? I didn't want to diverge from the thread reporting
> the issue. Maybe we should have started a new thread, decoupled from the
> patch?

Here what specifically confused the bot were the additional tags
present in the debug patch. One possible alternative would have been
posting - in the same thread - the code of the tentative patch without
the formal commit message/tag area.

That option is quite convenient toome, as writing the changelog takes
me a measurable amount of time and I could spend that effort only when
the patch is finalize/tested.

Please let me know if the above makes sense to you.

Cheers,

Paolo