linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2] net: cpsw: fix obtaining mac address for am3517

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:   Sat, 24 Jun 2023 17:53:36 +0200
From:   Simon Horman <simon.horman@...igine.com>
To:     Måns Rullgård <mans@...sr.com>
Cc:     Andrew Lunn <andrew@...n.ch>,
        Jeroen Hofstee <jhofstee@...tronenergy.com>,
        Tony Lindgren <tony@...mide.com>, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
        Mugunthan V N <mugunthanvnm@...com>,
        Grygorii Strashko <grygorii.strashko@...com>,
        "open list:TI ETHERNET SWITCH DRIVER (CPSW)" 
        <linux-omap@...r.kernel.org>,
        open list <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] net: cpsw: fix obtaining mac address for am3517

On Sat, Jun 24, 2023 at 04:02:07PM +0100, Måns Rullgård wrote:
> Simon Horman <simon.horman@...igine.com> writes:
> 
> > On Fri, Jun 23, 2023 at 11:41:10PM +0200, Andrew Lunn wrote:
> >> > > I feel like I am missing something here.
> >> > 
> >> > That is a weird response, you feel like something is missing
> >> 
> >> There is. The patch.
> >> 
> >> Maintainers have a slightly better memory than a goldfish, but given
> >> the high volume of patches, we don't remember threads from 2016. Also,
> >> all our infrastructure has limited memory, this patch is not in lore,
> >> and it is not in patchworks. So in terms of getting merged, it does
> >> not exist.
> >> 
> >> We do however recommend that if a patch has not been merged within 2
> >> weeks, it is rebased, any Acked-by: etc tags are added and the patch
> >> reposted.
> >
> > Thanks Andrew, that is also my position.
> >
> > A ping for a multi-year old patch is unusual (for me).
> > I was wondering if there was a back story. I guess not.
> 
> The only story here is that I was reviewing the set of patches we apply
> to our kernels, and I noticed that this one, judging by the discussion,
> should have been applied to some tree or other ages ago.
> 
> Now if it takes 6 years to get a one-line patch (a fix for a regression,
> no less) accepted, I have better things to spend my time on.

A long time to be sure. As Andrew explained, the patch is now stale.
It will need to be rebased and reposted in ordered to be considered for
upstream.