netdev - Re: [PATCH for-next V7 00/10] Move RoCE GID management to IB/Core

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: <CAJ3xEMjgvgvc8WyUhHagiH4gNs6KK7pL_TmhXCywNiWEy4p70w@mail.gmail.com>
Date:	Sun, 2 Aug 2015 00:48:19 +0300
From:	Or Gerlitz <gerlitz.or@...il.com>
To:	Jason Gunthorpe <jgunthorpe@...idianresearch.com>,
	Matan Barak <matanb@...lanox.com>
Cc:	Doug Ledford <dledford@...hat.com>,
	"linux-rdma@...r.kernel.org" <linux-rdma@...r.kernel.org>,
	Sean Hefty <sean.hefty@...el.com>,
	Somnath Kotur <Somnath.Kotur@...gotech.com>,
	Moni Shoua <monis@...lanox.com>,
	"talal@...lanox.com" <talal@...lanox.com>,
	Haggai Eran <haggaie@...lanox.com>,
	Linux Netdev List <netdev@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH for-next V7 00/10] Move RoCE GID management to IB/Core

On Sat, Aug 1, 2015 at 1:01 AM, Jason Gunthorpe
<jgunthorpe@...idianresearch.com> wrote:
> On Sat, Aug 01, 2015 at 12:24:23AM +0300, Or Gerlitz wrote:
>
>> addressed in incremental patch, as Doug suggested. Jason, it's wrong
>> to send developers again and again to fix things which were
>> perfect in Vn-1 but also not being covered by reviewers on Vn-1, at
>> some point the reviewer can't load new comments which gate the
>
> I don't even know what you are talking about Or.
>
> v6 had some small problems in the logic and v7 introduces a fairly
> serious flaw while trying to fix them. IMHO, you are better to merge
> v6 than v7, at least v6's problems are less likely to be serious.

Jason, can you be more specific? I don't see any comments from you
expect for the cover-letter, so if something broke out, sure, a fix is
needed, but what is that?

> That is the same argument you used for the timestamp _ex UAPI mess,
> last cycle, where are the incremental fixes for that?

I remember you have provided review comment which pointed that the
time-stamping series stepped on something which was there before needs
some cleanup, not a real mess to my taste. Matan, do have the plan to
do that work?

Or.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html