netdev - Re: [PATCH net-next] Revert ibmvnic merge do_change_param_reset into do

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:   Fri, 6 Nov 2020 11:42:08 -0800
From:   Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>
To:     ljp <ljp@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
Cc:     Dany Madden <drt@...ux.ibm.com>, wvoigt@...ibm.com,
        davem@...emloft.net, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
        linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org,
        Linuxppc-dev 
        <linuxppc-dev-bounces+ljp=linux.ibm.com@...ts.ozlabs.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next] Revert ibmvnic merge do_change_param_reset
 into do_reset

On Fri, 06 Nov 2020 13:30:25 -0600 ljp wrote:
> On 2020-11-06 13:17, Dany Madden wrote:
> > This reverts commit 16b5f5ce351f8709a6b518cc3cbf240c378305bf
> > where it restructures do_reset. There are patches being tested that
> > would require major rework if this is committed first.
> > 
> > We will resend this after the other patches have been applied.  
> 
> I discussed with my manager, and he has agreed not revert this one
> since it is in the net-next tree and will not affect net tree for
> current bug fix patches.

We merge net into net-next periodically (~every week or so) so if you
keep making changes to both branches I will have to deal with the
fallout.

I'm assuming that the resolution for the current conflict which Stephen
Rothwell sent from linux-next is correct. Please confirm.

I will resolve it like he did when Linus pulls from net (hopefully
later today).

But if you know you have more fixes I'd rather revert this, get all the
relevant fixed into net, wait for net to be merged into net-next and
then redo the refactoring.

Hope that makes sense.