linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH net-next 0/2] net: xilinx: axienet: Enable adaptive IRQ coalescing with DIM

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20240906070336.GJ1722938@kernel.org>
Date: Fri, 6 Sep 2024 08:03:36 +0100
From: Simon Horman <horms@...nel.org>
To: Sean Anderson <sean.anderson@...ux.dev>
Cc: "David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
	Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>,
	Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>, Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com>,
	Radhey Shyam Pandey <radhey.shyam.pandey@....com>,
	netdev@...r.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Michal Simek <michal.simek@....com>,
	Heng Qi <hengqi@...ux.alibaba.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next 0/2] net: xilinx: axienet: Enable adaptive IRQ
 coalescing with DIM

On Thu, Sep 05, 2024 at 10:27:00AM -0400, Sean Anderson wrote:
> On 9/4/24 12:35, Simon Horman wrote:
> > On Tue, Sep 03, 2024 at 03:25:22PM -0400, Sean Anderson wrote:
> >> To improve performance without sacrificing latency under low load,
> >> enable DIM. While I appreciate not having to write the library myself, I
> >> do think there are many unusual aspects to DIM, as detailed in the last
> >> patch.
> >> 
> >> This series depends on [1].
> >> 
> >> [1] https://lore.kernel.org/netdev/20240903180059.4134461-1-sean.anderson@linux.dev/
> > 
> > Hi Sean,
> > 
> > Unfortunately the CI doesn't understand dependencies,
> > and so it is unable to apply this patchset :(
> > 
> > I would suggest bundling patches for the same driver for net-next
> > in a single patchset. And in any case, only having one active
> > at any given time.
> > 
> 
> Well, I would normally do so, but that patch is a fix and this series is
> an improvement. So that one goes into net and this one goes into net-next.
> 
> I've been advised in the past to split up independent patches so they can be
> reviewed/applied individually.

Thanks Sean,

Understood. Given the first point, which I had missed earlier,
I'd would have suggested marking this patch-set as an RFC,
then reposting it once the dependency hits net-next (via net).