linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] arm64: dts: mt7622: fix switch probe on bananapi-r64

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: Tue, 25 Jun 2024 09:17:09 +0300
From: Arınç ÜNAL <arinc.unal@...nc9.com>
To: Linux regressions mailing list <regressions@...ts.linux.dev>,
 Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com>,
 AngeloGioacchino Del Regno <angelogioacchino.delregno@...labora.com>
Cc: devicetree@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
 linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, linux-mediatek@...ts.infradead.org,
 Daniel Golle <daniel@...rotopia.org>, frank-w@...lic-files.de,
 Frank Wunderlich <linux@...web.de>, Rob Herring <robh@...nel.org>,
 Conor Dooley <conor+dt@...nel.org>, Krzysztof Kozlowski
 <krzk+dt@...nel.org>, Matthias Brugger <matthias.bgg@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] arm64: dts: mt7622: fix switch probe on bananapi-r64

On 25/06/2024 08.56, Linux regression tracking (Thorsten Leemhuis) wrote:
> On 17.06.24 13:08, Arınç ÜNAL wrote:
>> On 17/06/2024 11:33, Linux regression tracking (Thorsten Leemhuis) wrote:
>> [...]
>> I've submitted a patch series that fixes the regression. Angelo argued
>> against the way the regression is fixed. I've very clearly argued back why
>> I find Angelo's approach wrong. There's been no response back. I don't
>> understand why reverting the patch is the likely outcome
> 
> Long story short: because that how things like that are handled in the
> Linux kernel project, as Linus wants it like that. See some of the
> quotes from https://docs.kernel.org/process/handling-regressions.html
> for details.
> 
>> whilst the
>> standing argument points towards applying the said patch series. If a
>> revert happens before this discussion with Angelo finalises, this will set
>> a precedent that will tell maintainers that they can have their way by just
>> not replying to the ongoing discussions.
>>
>> That said, the decision of resolving the regression by either reverting the
>> patch or applying the patch series shall not depend on whether or not
>> Angelo is pleased but rather there're no counter-arguments left on the
>> points brought, meaning the decision shall be made depending on the
>> argument that stands.
>>
>> Therefore, I suggest that unless Angelo responds back with a
>> counter-argument in the window of a week or two, as you've described, my
>> patch series shall be applied.
> 
> It looks more and more like we are stuck here (or was there progress and
> I just missed it?) while the 6.10 final is slowly getting closer. Hence:

There hasn't been progress at all. I believe I have clearly described the
way out of this issue.

> 
> AngeloGioacchino, should we ask the net maintainers to revert
> 868ff5f4944aa9 ("net: dsa: mt7530-mdio: read PHY address of switch from
> device tree") for now to resolve this regression? Reminder, there is
> nothing wrong with that commit per se afaik, it just exposes a problem
> that needs to be fixed first before it can be reapplied.

Are you suggesting the patch shall be reverted first, then the DT patch
applied, then the reverted patch applied back? If only one of the first two
steps were done, it would fix the regression so I don't understand why go
through this tedious process when we can quite simply apply the DT patch to
resolve the regression.

Keep in mind that I maintain the MT7530 DSA subdriver and the company I
work with has got boards that uses the functionality the commit
868ff5f4944aa9 ("net: dsa: mt7530-mdio: read PHY address of switch from
device tree") brings.

Arınç