netdev - Re: [PATCH net-next 0/5] mlx4 misc fixes and improvements

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: <6bcc5e49-2204-242a-c939-2352d0646f87@mellanox.com>
Date:   Tue, 20 Sep 2016 11:50:17 +0300
From:   Tariq Toukan <tariqt@...lanox.com>
To:     Or Gerlitz <gerlitz.or@...il.com>,
        David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
CC:     Tariq Toukan <tariqt@...lanox.com>,
        Linux Netdev List <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
        Eran Ben Elisha <eranbe@...lanox.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next 0/5] mlx4 misc fixes and improvements



On 19/09/2016 8:32 AM, Or Gerlitz wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 19, 2016 at 5:00 AM, David Miller <davem@...emloft.net> wrote:
>> From: Tariq Toukan <ttoukan.linux@...il.com>
>> Date: Sun, 18 Sep 2016 10:27:23 +0300
>>
>>> Hi Dave,
>>>
>>> On 16/09/2016 2:21 AM, David Miller wrote:
>>>> From: Tariq Toukan <tariqt@...lanox.com>
>>>> Date: Mon, 12 Sep 2016 16:20:11 +0300
>>>>
>>>>> This patchset contains some bug fixes, a cleanup, and small
>>>>> improvements
>>>>> from the team to the mlx4 Eth and core drivers.
>>>>>
>>>>> Series generated against net-next commit:
>>>>> 02154927c115 "net: dsa: bcm_sf2: Get VLAN_PORT_MASK from b53_device"
>>>>>
>>>>> Please push the following patch to -stable  >= 4.6 as well:
>>>>> "net/mlx4_core: Fix to clean devlink resources"
>>>> Again, coding style fixes and optimizations like branch prediction
>>>> hints are not bug fixes and therefore not appropriate for 'net'.
>>> Yes, I know. Please notice that it was submitted to net-next this
>>> time.
>> This is completely incompatible with a request for one of the changes
>> to go into -stable.
>>
>> If the change is not in 'net', it can't go to -stable.
> Dave,
>
> So when we're pretty late in the 4.8-rc cycle, a fix for a problem
> which was not introduced in 4.8-rc1 was targeted to net-next (4.9) and
> not net.
>
> This indeed creates a small mess when the fix needs to go to -stable as well.
>
> I guess the correct thing to do next time, would be to either send to
> net and ask you to take it to stable as part of picking the patch --
> or send to net-next, and later send you a request to put it to stable
> -- or, wait a bit and send it to net of the next kernel along with
> stable request... we will pick one of these three way of doings next
> (...) time.
>
> So, at this point, I think it would be just correct to take the series
> to net-next, and on a future point we'll issue a request to push the
> patch into stable.
>
> Or.
>
> Or.
Hi Dave,

I see that the series status is 'Changes requested'.
I agree with Or. If possible, please take the series, and we will issue 
a request to push into -stable in the future.
Anyway, I can also do a re-submission if you prefer. Just let me know.

Thanks,
Tariq