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: <85f00716-4cd7-410c-a4c7-8efd52e04ec8@linux.dev>
Date: Thu, 10 Jul 2025 14:57:48 -0400
From: Sean Anderson <sean.anderson@...ux.dev>
To: Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>
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 7/10/25 14:49, Jakub Kicinski wrote:
> 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() ?

Yes. I believe phy_driver_is_genphy() is sufficient in net-next.

> 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.

OK, so if A is this patch and B is the conflict above, you'd like me to
post an A' like:

     B---merge---A' net-next
    /   /
base---A            net

? Or did you have something in mind more like

     B---A' net-next
    /
base---A    net

--Sean