linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 1/4] Revert "igb: Disable threaded IRQ for igb_msix

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: <e7200ce3-97cd-4ce6-accf-e3041bc3eb13@intel.com>
Date: Tue, 12 Nov 2024 16:56:43 +0100
From: Przemek Kitszel <przemyslaw.kitszel@...el.com>
To: Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>
CC: Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@...utronix.de>, Jacob Keller
	<jacob.e.keller@...el.com>, Tony Nguyen <anthony.l.nguyen@...el.com>, "Wander
 Lairson Costa" <wander@...hat.com>, <tglx@...utronix.de>, Andrew Lunn
	<andrew+netdev@...n.ch>, "David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>, "Eric
 Dumazet" <edumazet@...gle.com>, Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com>, "Clark
 Williams" <clrkwllms@...nel.org>, Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
	"Simon Horman" <horms@...nel.org>, "moderated list:INTEL ETHERNET DRIVERS"
	<intel-wired-lan@...ts.osuosl.org>, "open list:NETWORKING DRIVERS"
	<netdev@...r.kernel.org>, open list <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, "open
 list:Real-time Linux (PREEMPT_RT):Keyword:PREEMPT_RT"
	<linux-rt-devel@...ts.linux.dev>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/4] Revert "igb: Disable threaded IRQ for
 igb_msix_other"

On 11/12/24 16:04, Jakub Kicinski wrote:
> On Tue, 12 Nov 2024 15:52:34 +0100 Przemek Kitszel wrote:
>> Acked-by: Przemek Kitszel <przemyslaw.kitszel@...el.com>
> 
> Do you want us to take this directly?
> To be clear - we only treat an ack from the maintainer who usually
> sends us patches as implicit "please take this directly".

Please take this one directly, Tony is OOO today, same for Jake
that could've provided also his RB otherwise.

I usually don't Ack intel-only series to avoid such ambiguities.

for this particular patch I wanted to say "fine for me, on behalf
of Intel", especially that this time I didn't provided meaningful
feedback on the code (put in that way to be nice for myself);
we have a track record of discussions preventing application to
the iwl*/dev-queue (as for this patch).