linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH net v2 2/2] net: dsa: mt7530: fix disabling EEE on failure on MT7531 and MT7988

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: <ZgRCZSBniraUCuT2@shell.armlinux.org.uk>
Date: Wed, 27 Mar 2024 15:59:33 +0000
From: "Russell King (Oracle)" <linux@...linux.org.uk>
To: arinc.unal@...nc9.com
Cc: Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com>, Daniel Golle <daniel@...rotopia.org>,
	DENG Qingfang <dqfext@...il.com>,
	Sean Wang <sean.wang@...iatek.com>, Andrew Lunn <andrew@...n.ch>,
	Florian Fainelli <f.fainelli@...il.com>,
	Vladimir Oltean <olteanv@...il.com>,
	"David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
	Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>,
	Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>,
	Matthias Brugger <matthias.bgg@...il.com>,
	AngeloGioacchino Del Regno <angelogioacchino.delregno@...labora.com>,
	René van Dorst <opensource@...rst.com>,
	SkyLake Huang <SkyLake.Huang@...iatek.com>,
	Heiner Kallweit <hkallweit1@...il.com>,
	Bartel Eerdekens <bartel.eerdekens@...stell8.be>,
	mithat.guner@...ont.com, erkin.bozoglu@...ont.com,
	netdev@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
	linux-mediatek@...ts.infradead.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH net v2 2/2] net: dsa: mt7530: fix disabling EEE on
 failure on MT7531 and MT7988

On Wed, Mar 27, 2024 at 03:58:13PM +0000, Russell King (Oracle) wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 27, 2024 at 11:46:19AM +0300, arinc.unal@...nc9.com wrote:
> > On 26.03.2024 12:19, Arınç ÜNAL wrote:
> > > On 26.03.2024 12:02, Paolo Abeni wrote:
> > > > If I read the past discussion correctly, this is a potential issue
> > > > found by code inspection and never producing problem in practice, am I
> > > > correct?
> > > > 
> > > > If so I think it will deserve a 3rd party tested-by tag or similar to
> > > > go in.
> > > > 
> > > > If nobody could provide such feedback in a little time, I suggest to
> > > > drop this patch and apply only 1/2.
> > > 
> > > Whether a problem would happen in practice depends on when
> > > phy_init_eee()
> > > fails, meaning it returns a negative non-zero code. I requested Russell
> > > to
> > > review this patch to shed light on when phy_init_eee() would return a
> > > negative non-zero code so we have an idea whether this patch actually
> > > fixes
> > > a problem.
> > 
> > I don't suppose Russell is going to review the patch at this point. I will
> > submit this to net-next then. If someone actually reports a problem in
> > practice, I can always submit it to the stable trees.
> 
> So the fact that I only saw your request this morning to look at
> phy_init_eee(), and to review this patch... because... I work for
> Oracle, and I've been looking at backporting Arm64 KVM patches to
> our kernel, been testing and debugging that effort... and the
> act that less than 24 hours had passed since you made the original
> request... yea, sorry, it's clearly my fault for not jumping on this
> the moment you sent the email.
> 
> I get _so_ much email that incorrectly has me in the To: header. I
> also get _so_ much email that fails to list me in the To: header
> when the author wants me to respond. I don't have time to read every
> email as it comes in. I certainly don't have time to read every
> email in any case. I do the best I can, which varies considerably
> with my workload.
> 
> I already find that being single, fitting everything in during the
> day (paid work, chores, feeding oneself) is quite a mammoth task.
> There is no one else to do the laundry. There is no one else to get
> the shopping. There is no one else to do the washing up. There is no
> one else to take the rubbish out. All this I do myself, and serially
> because there is only one of me, and it all takes time away from
> sitting here reading every damn email as it comes in.
> 
> And then when I end up doing something that _you_ very well could do
> (reading the phy_init_eee() code to find out when it might return a
> negative number) and then you send an email like this... yea... that
> really gets my goat.

.. and now I have a 1:1 with my manager for the next 30-60 minutes.
Is it okay by you for me to be offline for that period of time while
I have a chat with him?

-- 
RMK's Patch system: https://www.armlinux.org.uk/developer/patches/
FTTP is here! 80Mbps down 10Mbps up. Decent connectivity at last!