[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20241004073001.1316717d@kernel.org>
Date: Fri, 4 Oct 2024 07:30:01 -0700
From: Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>
To: Breno Leitao <leitao@...ian.org>
Cc: davem@...emloft.net, edumazet@...gle.com, pabeni@...hat.com,
thepacketgeek@...il.com, horms@...nel.org, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, davej@...emonkey.org.uk, max@...sevol.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next v4 00/10] net: netconsole refactoring and
warning fix
On Fri, 4 Oct 2024 01:50:13 -0700 Breno Leitao wrote:
> > Makes sense in general, but why isn't the fix sent to net first,
> > and then once the trees converge (follow Thursday) we can apply
> > the refactoring and improvements on top?
> >
> > The false positive warning went into 6.9 if I'm checking correctly.
>
> Correct. I probably should have separated the fix from the refactor.
>
> For context, I was pursuing the warning, and the code was hard to read,
> so, I was refactoring the code while narrowing down the warning.
>
> But you are correct, the warning is in 6.9+ kernels. But, keep in mind
> that the warning is very hard to trigger, basically the length of userdata
> and the message needs to be certain size to trigger it.
Understood, and to be honest it's a bit of an efficiency thing on
maintainer side - we try to avoid shades of gray as much as possible
because debates on what is and isn't a fix can consume a ton of time.
So in networking we push people to send the fixes for net, even if
triggering the problem isn't very likely.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists