linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH netdev] net: stmmac: dwmac-rk: Provide FIFO sizes for DWMAC 1000

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: <CAGb2v64CZWZwC7T9NNN7Re8pkCLQZEh3bcraYjcQRyVxtJgS5w@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 6 Feb 2025 01:40:17 +0800
From: Chen-Yu Tsai <wens@...nel.org>
To: Simon Horman <horms@...nel.org>
Cc: Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>, Andrew Lunn <andrew+netdev@...n.ch>, 
	"David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>, Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>, 
	Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com>, Heiko Stuebner <heiko@...ech.de>, 
	"Russell King (Oracle)" <rmk+kernel@...linux.org.uk>, Steven Price <steven.price@....com>, 
	Kunihiko Hayashi <hayashi.kunihiko@...ionext.com>, netdev@...r.kernel.org, 
	linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, 
	linux-rockchip@...ts.infradead.org, stable@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH netdev] net: stmmac: dwmac-rk: Provide FIFO sizes for
 DWMAC 1000

On Thu, Feb 6, 2025 at 1:38 AM Simon Horman <horms@...nel.org> wrote:
>
> On Wed, Feb 05, 2025 at 11:45:17AM +0800, Chen-Yu Tsai wrote:
> > On Wed, Feb 5, 2025 at 5:43 AM Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org> wrote:
> > >
> > > On Wed,  5 Feb 2025 00:13:59 +0800 Chen-Yu Tsai wrote:
> > > > Since a fix for stmmac in general has already been sent [1] and a revert
> > > > was also proposed [2], I'll refrain from sending mine.
> > >
> > > No, no, please do. You need to _submit_ the revert like a normal patch.
> > > With all the usual details in the commit message.
> >
> > Mine isn't a revert, but simply downgrading the error to a warning.
> > So... yet another workaround approach.
>
> I think the point is that someone needs to formally
> submit the revert. And I assume it should target the net tree.

Russell sent one a couple hours ago, so I think we're covered.