netdev - Re: [PATCH net-next 0/6] ionic error recovery fixes

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]

Date:   Thu, 19 Mar 2020 22:21:47 -0700
From:   Shannon Nelson <snelson@...sando.io>
To:     Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>
Cc:     netdev@...r.kernel.org, davem@...emloft.net
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next 0/6] ionic error recovery fixes

On 3/19/20 8:46 PM, Jakub Kicinski wrote:
> On Thu, 19 Mar 2020 19:31:47 -0700 Shannon Nelson wrote:
>> These are a few little patches to make error recovery a little
>> more safe and successful.
> Patches looks good to me, FWIW. Thanks for dropping the controversial
> one. I think this should have been v2 since we seen most if not all of
> these.

I suppose v2 would have been okay, but that patchset was specifically 
labeled as for firmware upgrade, and these are "merely" supporting 
fixes.  It didn't seem right to keep the firmware upgrade in the name, 
yet it didn't seem right to call something with a new name 'v2'.  I 
suppose it would have been good to call out in the cover letter that 
these were refugee patches from a previous patchset.

> I'm not sure why most of them have a Fixes tag, though. The
> AUTOSEL bot is quite likely to pull them into the stable trees once
> they land. Is this some intentional strategy on your part?
Because in my last patchset I had similar types of fixes without the 
Fixes tag and got reminded that I should have the tag.  These do fix 
"issues in a previous commit" as suggested in the 
submitting-patches.rst, so it seemed appropriate.  They aren't high 
priority issues, else I would have targeted them at net rather than 
net-next.  If accepted, they'll get there soon enough.

Meanwhile, thanks for the review time :-)

Cheers,
sln