netdev - Re: netvsc NAPI patch process

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: <20170127180419.GB24114@kroah.com>
Date:   Fri, 27 Jan 2017 19:04:19 +0100
From:   Greg KH <greg@...ah.com>
To:     Stephen Hemminger <stephen@...workplumber.org>
Cc:     David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>, kys@...rosoft.com,
        netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: netvsc NAPI patch process

On Fri, Jan 27, 2017 at 09:39:53AM -0800, Stephen Hemminger wrote:
> On Fri, 27 Jan 2017 08:54:06 +0100
> Greg KH <greg@...ah.com> wrote:
> 
> > On Thu, Jan 26, 2017 at 01:06:46PM -0500, David Miller wrote:
> > > From: Stephen Hemminger <stephen@...workplumber.org>
> > > Date: Thu, 26 Jan 2017 10:04:05 -0800
> > >   
> > > > I have a working set of patches to enable NAPI in the netvsc driver.
> > > > The problem is that it requires a set of patches to vmbus layer as well.
> > > > Since vmbus patches have been going through char-misc-next tree rather
> > > > than net-next, it is difficult to stage these.
> > > > 
> > > > How about if I send the vmbus patches through normal driver-devel upstream
> > > > and during the 4.10 merge window send the last 3 patches for NAPI for linux-net
> > > > tree to get into 4.10?  
> > > 
> > > Another option is that the char-misc-next folks create a branch with just
> > > the commits you need for NAPI, I pull that into net-next, and then you
> > > can submit the NAPI changes to me.  
> > 
> > I can easily do that, or I have no problem with the vmbus changes going
> > through the net-next tree, if they are sane (i.e. let me review them
> > please...)  Which ever is easier for the networking developers, their
> > tree is much crazier than the tiny char-misc tree is :)
> > 
> > thanks,
> > 
> > greg k-h
> 
> I just want the least pain and the least overhead process. Waiting two releases
> and trying to deal with merge conflicts is a pain. Also it makes life harder
> with distro backports etc.

I totally agree.  Post the patches and let's see what they look like and
then we can argue who's tree they should go through :)