linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH net] net: phy: Don't register LEDs for genphy

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: <20250710114926.7ec3a64f@kernel.org>
Date: Thu, 10 Jul 2025 11:49:26 -0700
From: Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>
To: Sean Anderson <sean.anderson@...ux.dev>
Cc: Andrew Lunn <andrew@...n.ch>, Heiner Kallweit <hkallweit1@...il.com>,
 Russell King <linux@...linux.org.uk>, netdev@...r.kernel.org, Paolo Abeni
 <pabeni@...hat.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, "David S . Miller"
 <davem@...emloft.net>, Florian Fainelli <f.fainelli@...il.com>, Eric
 Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>, Christian Marangi <ansuelsmth@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net] net: phy: Don't register LEDs for genphy

On Thu, 10 Jul 2025 14:17:18 -0400 Sean Anderson wrote:
> On 7/10/25 13:52, Jakub Kicinski wrote:
> > On Thu, 10 Jul 2025 13:40:33 -0400 Sean Anderson wrote:  
> >> I see this is marked "Changes Requested" in patchwork. However, I don't
> >> believe that I need to change anything until the above commit is merged
> >> into net/main. Will you be merging that commit? Or should I just resend
> >> without changes?  
> > 
> > The patch must build when posted. If it didn't you need to repost.  
> 
> It builds on net/main. Which is what I posted for. The CI applied it to net-next/main.

Damn, I see your point now, sorry :/
So in net-next we'll have to drop the phy_driver_is_genphy_10g() ?

I think it may be best if we turn this into an explicit merge
conflict, IOW if you could post both net and net-next version
I will merge them at the same time. Upstream trees like CI or
linux-next will have easier time handling a git conflict than
a build failure. Does that make sense? For the net-next version
describe it from the perspective of the net patch already being
merged and you're writing the "-next" version of the patch.
I'll edit in the git hash of the net commit when applying.