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]

Message-ID: <f0bb7f558a24cfc16bb05754a847fca1@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Date:   Fri, 06 Nov 2020 14:15:51 -0600
From:   ljp <ljp@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
To:     Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>
Cc:     wvoigt@...ibm.com, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
        Linuxppc-dev 
        <linuxppc-dev-bounces+ljp=linux.ibm.com@...ts.ozlabs.org>,
        Dany Madden <drt@...ux.ibm.com>, linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org,
        davem@...emloft.net
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next] Revert ibmvnic merge do_change_param_reset into
 do_reset

On 2020-11-06 13:42, Jakub Kicinski wrote:
> 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.

That fix is correct.

> 
> 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.