[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <36ce1f2e-843c-4995-8bb2-2c2676f01b9d@molgen.mpg.de>
Date: Tue, 3 Nov 2020 08:35:09 +0100
From: Paul Menzel <pmenzel@...gen.mpg.de>
To: Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>
Cc: Jesse Brandeburg <jesse.brandeburg@...el.com>,
Tony Nguyen <anthony.l.nguyen@...el.com>,
Jeffrey Townsend <jeffrey.townsend@...switch.com>,
"David S . Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
intel-wired-lan@...ts.osuosl.org, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
John W Linville <linville@...driver.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] ethernet: igb: e1000_phy: Check for
ops.force_speed_duplex existence
Dear Jakub,
Am 03.11.20 um 01:19 schrieb Jakub Kicinski:
> On Tue, 3 Nov 2020 00:13:07 +0100 Paul Menzel wrote:
>> From: Jeffrey Townsend <jeffrey.townsend@...switch.com>
>>
>> The ops field might no be defined, so add a check.
>
> This change should be first, otherwise AFAIU if someone builds the
> kernel in between the commits (e.g. for bisection) it will crash.
Patch `[PATCH 1/2] ethernet: igb: Support PHY BCM5461S` has
phy->ops.force_speed_duplex = igb_phy_force_speed_duplex_82580;
so the ordering does not matter. I do not know, if Jeffrey can comment,
but probably the check was just adding during development. Maybe an
assert should be added instead?
>> The patch is taken from Open Network Linux (ONL), and it was added there
>> as part of the patch
>>
>> packages/base/any/kernels/3.16+deb8/patches/driver-support-intel-igb-bcm5461X-phy.patch
>>
>> in ONL commit f32316c63c (Support the BCM54616 and BCM5461S.) [1]. Part
>> of this commit was already upstreamed in Linux commit eeb0149660 (igb:
>> support BCM54616 PHY) in 2017.
>>
>> I applied the forward-ported
>>
>> packages/base/any/kernels/5.4-lts/patches/0002-driver-support-intel-igb-bcm5461S-phy.patch
>>
>> added in ONL commit 5ace6bcdb3 (Add 5.4 LTS kernel build.) [2].
>>
>> [1]: https://github.com/opencomputeproject/OpenNetworkLinux/commit/f32316c63ce3a64de125b7429115c6d45e942bd1
>> [2]: https://github.com/opencomputeproject/OpenNetworkLinux/commit/5ace6bcdb37cb8065dcd1d4404b3dcb6424f6331
>
> No need to put this in every commit message.
>
> We preserve the cover letter in tree as a merge commit message, so
> explaining things once in the cover letter is sufficient.
I remember, but still find it confusing. If I look at a commit with `git
show …`, I normally do not think of also looking at a possible cover
letter as not many subsystems/projects do it, and I assume a commit is
self-contained.
Could you share your development process
>> Cc: Jeffrey Townsend <jeffrey.townsend@...switch.com>
>
> Jefferey will need to provide a sign-off as the author.
According to *Developer's Certificate of Origin 1.1* [3], it’s my
understanding, that it is *not* required. The items (a), (b), and (c)
are connected by an *or*.
> (b) The contribution is based upon previous work that, to the best
> of my knowledge, is covered under an appropriate open source
> license and I have the right under that license to submit that
> work with modifications, whether created in whole or in part
> by me, under the same open source license (unless I am
> permitted to submit under a different license), as indicated
> in the file; or
>> Cc: John W Linville <linville@...driver.com>
>> Signed-off-by: Paul Menzel <pmenzel@...gen.mpg.de>
Kind regards,
Paul
[3]:
https://www.kernel.org/doc/html/v5.9/process/submitting-patches.html#sign-your-work-the-developer-s-certificate-of-origin
Powered by blists - more mailing lists