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 10:51:31 +0200
From: AngeloGioacchino Del Regno <angelogioacchino.delregno@...labora.com>
To: Linux regressions mailing list <regressions@...ts.linux.dev>,
 Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.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>, Arınç ÜNAL
 <arinc.unal@...nc9.com>, 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

Il 25/06/24 07:56, Linux regression tracking (Thorsten Leemhuis) ha scritto:
> 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:
> 
> 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.
> 

To be clear on this: I asked for the commit to be fixed such that it guarantees
backwards compatibility with older device trees.

If no fix comes, then I guess that we should ask them to revert this commit
until a fix is available.

I don't like this situation, either, btw.

Ciao!
Angelo

> Ciao, Thorsten (wearing his 'the Linux kernel's regression tracker' hat)
> --
> Everything you wanna know about Linux kernel regression tracking:
> https://linux-regtracking.leemhuis.info/about/#tldr
> If I did something stupid, please tell me, as explained on that page.
> 
> #regzbot poke