linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 1/4] net: mellanox: drop mlx5_cpumask_default

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: <ZRzAcJInEJtYuOKi@yury-ThinkPad>
Date:   Tue, 3 Oct 2023 18:31:28 -0700
From:   Yury Norov <yury.norov@...il.com>
To:     Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>
Cc:     Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        netdev@...r.kernel.org, linux-rdma@...r.kernel.org,
        Tariq Toukan <ttoukan.linux@...il.com>,
        Valentin Schneider <vschneid@...hat.com>,
        Maher Sanalla <msanalla@...dia.com>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>, Mel Gorman <mgorman@...e.de>,
        Saeed Mahameed <saeedm@...dia.com>,
        Leon Romanovsky <leon@...nel.org>,
        "David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
        Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
        Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@...hat.com>,
        Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@...aro.org>,
        Dietmar Eggemann <dietmar.eggemann@....com>,
        Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
        Ben Segall <bsegall@...gle.com>,
        Daniel Bristot de Oliveira <bristot@...hat.com>,
        Pawel Chmielewski <pawel.chmielewski@...el.com>,
        Jacob Keller <jacob.e.keller@...el.com>,
        Yury Norov <ynorov@...dia.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/4] net: mellanox: drop mlx5_cpumask_default_spread()

On Tue, Oct 03, 2023 at 03:20:30PM -0700, Jakub Kicinski wrote:
> On Tue, 3 Oct 2023 06:46:17 -0700 Yury Norov wrote:
> > Can you elaborate on the conflicts you see? For me it applies cleanly
> > on current master, and with some 3-way merging on latest -next...
> 
> We're half way thru the release cycle the conflicts can still come in.
> 
> There's no dependency for the first patch. The most normal way to
> handle this would be to send patch 1 to the networking tree and send
> the rest in the subsequent merge window.

Ah, I understand now. I didn't plan to move it in current merge
window. In fact, I'll be more comfortable to keep it in -next for
longer and merge it in v6.7.

But it's up to you. If you think it's better, I can resend 1st patch
separately.

Thanks,
Yury