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:   Wed, 8 Feb 2023 22:14:07 +0200
From:   Vladimir Oltean <vladimir.oltean@....com>
To:     Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.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, Feb 07, 2023 at 07:07:14PM +0100, Paolo Abeni wrote:
> 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.

I think even the Signed-off-by would confuse the patchwork bot, right?
I would have to send just the diff portion, and send the full patch as
an email attachment.

In any case, I'll pay attention to this next time.