linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] leds: trigger: netdev: Fix kernel panic on interface rename trig notify

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: <65c0f2dc.050a0220.63083.8524@mx.google.com>
Date: Mon, 5 Feb 2024 15:38:17 +0100
From: Christian Marangi <ansuelsmth@...il.com>
To: Lee Jones <lee@...nel.org>
Cc: Andrew Lunn <andrew@...n.ch>, Pavel Machek <pavel@....cz>,
	"David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
	Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>,
	Heiner Kallweit <hkallweit1@...il.com>,
	Daniel Golle <daniel@...rotopia.org>,
	Li Zetao <lizetao1@...wei.com>, linux-leds@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, stable@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] leds: trigger: netdev: Fix kernel panic on interface
 rename trig notify

On Mon, Feb 05, 2024 at 02:33:59PM +0000, Lee Jones wrote:
> On Mon, 05 Feb 2024, Christian Marangi wrote:
> 
> > On Mon, Feb 05, 2024 at 02:41:46PM +0100, Andrew Lunn wrote:
> > > > > This should have 'net' in the subject line, to indicate which tree its
> > > > > for.
> > > > 
> > > > No, it shouldn't.
> > > > 
> > > > Contributors aren't obliged to know anything about merging strategies.
> > > 
> > > With netdev, we tend to assume they do, or at least can contribute to
> > > the discussion. They often know about any dependencies etc which could
> > > influence the decision. When there are multiple subsystem maintainers
> > > involved, i tend to use To: to indicate the maintainer i think should
> > > merge the patch, and Cc: for the rest.
> > >
> > 
> > I'm always a bit confused when I have to send patch to mixed subsystem
> > (not the case but for net trigger it's almost that). Sorry for the
> > confusion/noise.
> 
> When you have a truly cross-subsystem patch, it's up to you.
> 
>  - Mention both e.g. leds/net:
>  - Mention neither e.g. <device>:
>  - Mention the one that is most relevant
> 
>  An example of the last option might be when the lion's share of the
>  changes occur in one subsystem and only header files are changed in the
>  other.
> 
> In an ideal world i.e. when there are no build-time/runtime deps between
> them, changes should be separated out into their own commits.
>

Thanks a lot for the explaination and the examples!

> > > > Why does this need to go in via net?
> > > 
> > > It does not, as far as i'm aware. Christian, do you know of any
> > > reason?
> > > 
> > 
> > This is strictly a fix, no dependency or anything like that. Maybe using
> > net as target would make this faster to merge (since net is for fix only
> > and this has to be backported) than using leds-next?
> 
> We have leds-fixes for that.
>

Oh! No idea, should I add a tag to the patch to target that branch
specifically?

Anyway Since we have leds-fixes and this is leds related I think it's ok
to use that and don't disturb net subsystem.

(again IT IS a kernel panic but happens only on some specific situation
so it's not that critical)

-- 
	Ansuel