netdev - Re: [GIT] 'net' merged into 'net-next'

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: <1521830052.8756.100.camel@mellanox.com>
Date:   Fri, 23 Mar 2018 18:34:16 +0000
From:   Saeed Mahameed <saeedm@...lanox.com>
To:     Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@...lanox.com>,
        "davem@...emloft.net" <davem@...emloft.net>
CC:     "dsahern@...il.com" <dsahern@...il.com>,
        "netdev@...r.kernel.org" <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
        Ido Schimmel <idosch@...lanox.com>,
        "dledford@...hat.com" <dledford@...hat.com>,
        "sd@...asysnail.net" <sd@...asysnail.net>
Subject: Re: [GIT] 'net' merged into 'net-next'

On Fri, 2018-03-23 at 13:36 -0400, David Miller wrote:
> From: Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@...lanox.com>
> Date: Fri, 23 Mar 2018 11:26:22 -0600
> 
> > On Fri, Mar 23, 2018 at 11:40:59AM -0400, David Miller wrote:
> > > 
> > > This merge was a little bit more hectic than usual.
> > > 
> > > But thankfully, I had some sample conflict resolutions to work
> > > with, in particular for the mlx5 infiniband changes which were
> > > the most difficult to resolve.
> > > 
> > > Please double check my work and provide any fixup patches if
> > > necessary.
> > 
> > The drivers/infiniband looks OK, and I also checked that merging
> > netdev and rdma together gets us to the right result.
> 
> Thanks for looking at it.

Dave,

I would like to raise this up again, we already suggested a way to
avoid these kind of failures in the future, but you've seem to missed
it.

Basically we want to run mlx5 core branch to be clean from netdev or
rdma stuff and will be submitted to both subsystems.

for example if a netdev/rdma feature want to add mlx5 core
functionality we will end up sending a pull request in the following
structure:

mlx5/core pull request   -> goes to both trees (netdev and rdma).
mlx5 netdev part pull request -> goes to netdev only

same for rdma, the mlx5/core part goes to both trees, but net-next is
not required to pull the rdma part, we will get to review it but will
never need to pull it..

Is this something that could work ?

Thanks,
Saeed.