linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v4 net-next 08/14] net: enetc: add RSS support for i.MX95 ENETC PF

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: <20250318114316.2st2ylxuu7srloqc@skbuf>
Date: Tue, 18 Mar 2025 13:43:16 +0200
From: Vladimir Oltean <vladimir.oltean@....com>
To: Wei Fang <wei.fang@....com>
Cc: Claudiu Manoil <claudiu.manoil@....com>,
	Clark Wang <xiaoning.wang@....com>,
	"andrew+netdev@...n.ch" <andrew+netdev@...n.ch>,
	"davem@...emloft.net" <davem@...emloft.net>,
	"edumazet@...gle.com" <edumazet@...gle.com>,
	"kuba@...nel.org" <kuba@...nel.org>,
	"pabeni@...hat.com" <pabeni@...hat.com>,
	"christophe.leroy@...roup.eu" <christophe.leroy@...roup.eu>,
	"netdev@...r.kernel.org" <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
	"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	"imx@...ts.linux.dev" <imx@...ts.linux.dev>,
	"linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org" <linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org>,
	"linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org" <linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 net-next 08/14] net: enetc: add RSS support for i.MX95
 ENETC PF

On Tue, Mar 18, 2025 at 06:47:11AM +0200, Wei Fang wrote:
> > These rxnfc commands seem implemented identically to the corresponding
> > subset from enetc_get_rxnfc(). Rather than duplicating those, could you
> > rather return -EOPNOTSUPP for the unsupported ones on NETC v4, and reuse
> > enetc_get_rxnfc()?
> > 
> 
> I have explained it to Jakub in v2:
> https://lore.kernel.org/imx/PAXPR04MB8510B52B7D27640C557680B4881A2@PAXPR04MB8510.eurprd04.prod.outlook.com/
> 
> So I don't want to reuse it for ENETC v4 PF.

A detail of the review process, written in Documentation/process/6.Followthrough.rst,
is that "Andrew Morton has suggested that every review comment which does
not result in a code change should result in an additional code comment
instead; that can help future reviewers avoid the questions which came
up the first time around."

[ personal mention: it doesn't have to be a code comment but can also be
  a sentence in the commit message ]

I believe that it would be good if you could apply that suggestion for
future submissions (not only for this particular comment).