netdev - Re: [net-next 1/6] e1000e: Avoid wrong check on TX hang

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <1323073499.24828.36.camel@jtkirshe-mobl>
Date:	Mon, 05 Dec 2011 00:24:58 -0800
From:	Jeff Kirsher <jeffrey.t.kirsher@...el.com>
To:	Michael Wang <wangyun@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
Cc:	Flavio Leitner <fbl@...hat.com>,
	David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>,
	"netdev@...r.kernel.org" <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
	"gospo@...hat.com" <gospo@...hat.com>,
	"sassmann@...hat.com" <sassmann@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [net-next 1/6] e1000e: Avoid wrong check on TX hang

On Mon, 2011-12-05 at 00:18 -0800, Michael Wang wrote:
> On 12/05/2011 04:02 PM, Jeff Kirsher wrote:
> 
> > On Sun, 2011-12-04 at 23:15 -0800, Michael Wang wrote:
> >> On 12/05/2011 02:25 PM, Jeff Kirsher wrote:
> >>
> >>> On Sun, 2011-12-04 at 17:05 -0800, Michael Wang wrote:
> >>>> On 12/04/2011 03:28 PM, Jeff Kirsher wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>> On Sat, 2011-12-03 at 19:26 -0800, David Miller wrote:
> >>>>>> From: Jeff Kirsher <jeffrey.t.kirsher@...el.com>
> >>>>>> Date: Sat,  3 Dec 2011 03:44:26 -0800
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>> +	if ((!adapter->tx_hang_recheck) &&
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Excessive parenthesis, please remove.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>> +		adapter->tx_hang_recheck = 1;
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> This variable is a bool, set it to true or false.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>> +			adapter->tx_hang_recheck = 0;
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Likewise.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>> +	adapter->tx_hang_recheck = 0;
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Likewise.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Michael/Flavio -
> >>>>>
> >>>>> To expedite this patch, I can make the changes that Dave is requesting
> >>>>> and re-submit v2 of the patch, if that is ok with you.
> >>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> Hi, Jeff
> >>>>
> >>>> That's ok for me, I think it's good if you can work with Dave and make
> >>>> out a final version for us, if you want my help, please mail me at any
> >>>> time, I'm glad to work with you.
> >>>>
> >>>> Flavio:
> >>>> What's your opinion?
> >>>>
> >>>> Thanks,
> >>>> Michael Wang
> >>>
> >>> I have the patch read to push, so I will go ahead an push v2 out
> >>> tonight.  Since I am making changes to your patch, I will be removing
> >>> your signed-off-by (and Flavio's) and keep you as a CC: so that you can
> >>> verify the changes I have made to resolve the issues that Dave saw.
> >>>
> >>
> >> Hi, Jeff
> >>
> >> Is that means you have a better patch which different from ours, and you
> >> will use your patch to instead of ours?
> >>
> >> Because David is just ask for some small change, I think your time zone
> >> may be better to work with him, so I ask for your help.
> >>
> >> I was just confused that why our signed-off-by should be removed?
> >>
> >> Thanks,
> >> Michael Wang
> >>
> >>> Cheers,
> >>> Jeff
> > 
> > It is your patch (your original work) but since I have made changes to
> > your patch, I (or anyone for that matter) should not assume that you as
> > the owner would signed off on the changes that I have made based on
> > feedback.  It would not be right for me to send out a patch with your
> > signed-off-by which is different from what you originally submitted,
> > without your ok.  Once I send out the v2 of the patch, please feel free
> > to add your signed-off-by OR acked-by to the patch.
> > 
> 
> Hi, Jeff
> 
> That make sense, I'm sorry but because I'm new to the community, and I
> just want to make every thing clear so I can do better in the future.

No problem, just trying to help get your work/fix upstream.
> 
> > While I personally do not have a problem keeping you as the owner and
> > your signed-off-by, I believe that takes in several assumptions which
> > only you as the owner should speak for.  I am not trying to take
> > ownership for stats purposes, I care less about the number of patches I
> > create and own and would rather make sure that the original owners get
> > the credit due for the work they did.
> > 
> 
> 
> I'm so sorry and I regret if I make you unhappy by some wrong word,
> please forgive me.

Not at all, you have not made me unhappy, so no need to apologize.  I am
just sorry if my email came across frustrated or unhappy.

> 
> > So with that, when I send out my next series of patches please feel free
> > to ACK or Sign-off on the changes made.  I just wanted to make sure that
> > we get these changes in soon (with out delay).
> > 
> > I can wait if you want to keep ownership of the patch, I just wanted to
> > ensure that we get your patch included as soon as possible based on the
> > problem it fixes.
> 
> Please help us to make the patch perfect, and I'm very glad if I can
> have the opportunity to work with you.

I am always here to help and welcome any submissions you want to provide
to make our Intel drivers better.  Thank you!

> 
> Thanks & Best regards
> Michael Wang
> 



Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (837 bytes)