linux-kernel - RE: [EXT] Re: [PATCH v2 net 2/2] net: fec: restructuring the functions to avoid forward declarations

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: <PAXPR04MB9185FA526B63311C3899BD9C896C9@PAXPR04MB9185.eurprd04.prod.outlook.com>
Date:   Wed, 3 May 2023 19:20:15 +0000
From:   Shenwei Wang <shenwei.wang@....com>
To:     Simon Horman <horms@...nel.org>
CC:     Andrew Lunn <andrew@...n.ch>, Wei Fang <wei.fang@....com>,
        "David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
        Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>,
        Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>,
        Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com>,
        Clark Wang <xiaoning.wang@....com>,
        dl-linux-imx <linux-imx@....com>,
        Alexei Starovoitov <ast@...nel.org>,
        Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net>,
        Jesper Dangaard Brouer <hawk@...nel.org>,
        John Fastabend <john.fastabend@...il.com>,
        Alexander Lobakin <alexandr.lobakin@...el.com>,
        "netdev@...r.kernel.org" <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
        "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        "imx@...ts.linux.dev" <imx@...ts.linux.dev>
Subject: RE: [EXT] Re: [PATCH v2 net 2/2] net: fec: restructuring the
 functions to avoid forward declarations



> -----Original Message-----
> From: Simon Horman <horms@...nel.org>
> Sent: Wednesday, May 3, 2023 2:07 PM
> To: Shenwei Wang <shenwei.wang@....com>
> Cc: Andrew Lunn <andrew@...n.ch>; Wei Fang <wei.fang@....com>; David S.
> Miller <davem@...emloft.net>; Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>; Jakub
> Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>; Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com>; Clark Wang
> <xiaoning.wang@....com>; dl-linux-imx <linux-imx@....com>; Alexei
> Starovoitov <ast@...nel.org>; Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net>;
> Jesper Dangaard Brouer <hawk@...nel.org>; John Fastabend
> <john.fastabend@...il.com>; Alexander Lobakin
> <alexandr.lobakin@...el.com>; netdev@...r.kernel.org; linux-
> kernel@...r.kernel.org; imx@...ts.linux.dev
> Subject: Re: [EXT] Re: [PATCH v2 net 2/2] net: fec: restructuring the functions to
> avoid forward declarations
>
> Caution: This is an external email. Please take care when clicking links or
> opening attachments. When in doubt, report the message using the 'Report this
> email' button
>
>
> On Wed, May 03, 2023 at 06:41:59PM +0000, Shenwei Wang wrote:
>
> ...
>
> > > > > On Tue, May 02, 2023 at 05:08:18PM -0500, Shenwei Wang wrote:
> > > > > > The patch reorganizes functions related to XDP frame
> > > > > > transmission, moving them above the fec_enet_run_xdp
> > > > > > implementation. This eliminates the need for forward declarations of
> these functions.
> > > > >
> > > > > I'm confused. Are these two patches in the wrong order?
> > > > >
> > > > > The reason that i asked you to fix the forward declaration in
> > > > > net-next is that it makes your fix two patches. Sometimes that
> > > > > is not obvious to people back porting patches, and one gets
> > > > > lost, causing build problems. So it is better to have a single
> > > > > patch which is maybe not 100% best practice merged to stable,
> > > > > and then a cleanup patch
> > > merged to the head of development.
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > If that is the case, we should forgo the second patch. Its purpose
> > > > was to reorganize function order such that the subsequent patch to
> > > > net-next enabling XDP_TX would not encounter forward declaration issues.
> > >
> > > I think a good plan would be, as I understood Andrew's original
> > > suggestion,
> > > to:
> > >
> > > 1. Only have patch 2/2, targeted at 'net', for now 2. Later, once
> > > that patch has been accepted into 'net', 'net-next' has
> > >    reopened, and that patch is present in 'net-next', then follow-up
> > >    with patch 1/2, which is a cleanup.
> >
> > So should I re-submit the patch? Or you just take the 1st patch and
> > drop the 2nd one?
>
> net and net-next work on a granularity of patch-sets.
> So I would suggest re-submitting only patch 2/2 for 'net'.
>

Hi Simon,

I'm a bit confused.

Are you suggesting that I submit the following restructuring patch for 'net' at this time?
[PATCH v2 net 2/2] net: fec: restructuring the functions to avoid forward declarations

Thanks,
Shenwei


> I would also suggest waiting 24h between posting v2 and v3, as per
> https://kernel.or/
> g%2Fdoc%2Fhtml%2Fnext%2Fprocess%2Fmaintainer-
> netdev.html&data=05%7C01%7Cshenwei.wang%40nxp.com%7Ca451f7a0cf674
> 0b0561d08db4c09a558%7C686ea1d3bc2b4c6fa92cd99c5c301635%7C0%7C0%7
> C638187376528990151%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwM
> DAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C
> &sdata=wBrPt7eKO2Y8ve%2B%2BG8STtZZVS9YdQR11YUL6wcwJ29M%3D&rese
> rved=0
>