[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <aKRb3R1l9XLr3DHw@pidgin.makrotopia.org>
Date: Tue, 19 Aug 2025 12:11:25 +0100
From: Daniel Golle <daniel@...rotopia.org>
To: Vladimir Oltean <olteanv@...il.com>
Cc: Hauke Mehrtens <hauke@...ke-m.de>, Andrew Lunn <andrew@...n.ch>,
"David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>,
Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>, Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com>,
Philipp Zabel <p.zabel@...gutronix.de>,
Russell King <linux@...linux.org.uk>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
netdev@...r.kernel.org, Andreas Schirm <andreas.schirm@...mens.com>,
Lukas Stockmann <lukas.stockmann@...mens.com>,
Alexander Sverdlin <alexander.sverdlin@...mens.com>,
Peter Christen <peter.christen@...mens.com>,
Avinash Jayaraman <ajayaraman@...linear.com>,
Bing tao Xu <bxu@...linear.com>, Liang Xu <lxu@...linear.com>,
Juraj Povazanec <jpovazanec@...linear.com>,
"Fanni (Fang-Yi) Chan" <fchan@...linear.com>,
"Benny (Ying-Tsan) Weng" <yweng@...linear.com>,
"Livia M. Rosu" <lrosu@...linear.com>,
John Crispin <john@...ozen.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next v2 3/8] net: dsa: lantiq_gswip: move definitions
to header
On Tue, Aug 19, 2025 at 01:50:55PM +0300, Vladimir Oltean wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 19, 2025 at 02:33:02AM +0100, Daniel Golle wrote:
> > +#define GSWIP_TABLE_ACTIVE_VLAN 0x01
> > +#define GSWIP_TABLE_VLAN_MAPPING 0x02
> > +#define GSWIP_TABLE_MAC_BRIDGE 0x0b
> > +#define GSWIP_TABLE_MAC_BRIDGE_KEY3_FID GENMASK(5, 0) /* Filtering identifier */
> > +#define GSWIP_TABLE_MAC_BRIDGE_VAL0_PORT GENMASK(7, 4) /* Port on learned entries */
> > +#define GSWIP_TABLE_MAC_BRIDGE_VAL1_STATIC BIT(0) /* Static, non-aging entry */
> > +#define GSWIP_TABLE_MAC_BRIDGE_VAL1_VALID BIT(1) /* Valid bit */
>
> The VAL1_VALID bit definition sneaked in, there was no such thing in the
> code being moved.
>
> I'm willing to let this pass (I don't think I have other review comments
> that would justify a resend), but it's not a good practice to introduce
> changes in large quantities of code as you're moving them around.
I agree that this is bad and shouldn't have happened when moving the code.
Already this makes git blame more difficult, so it should be as clean as
possible, source and destination should match byte-by-byte.
It happened because I had the fix for the gswip_port_fdb() (for which Vladimir
is working on a better solution) sitting below the series and that added this
bit.
I can resend just this single patch another time without the rest of the
series, or send it all again. Let me know your preference.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists