netdev - Re: [PATCH net-next 2/3] mlxsw: spectrum_ptp: use PTP wide message type definitions

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: <2074851.ybSLjXPktx@n95hx1g2>
Date:   Sun, 22 Nov 2020 20:29:22 +0100
From:   Christian Eggers <ceggers@...i.de>
To:     Ido Schimmel <idosch@...sch.org>
CC:     Richard Cochran <richardcochran@...il.com>,
        Andrew Lunn <andrew@...n.ch>,
        Heiner Kallweit <hkallweit1@...il.com>,
        Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>,
        Vladimir Oltean <olteanv@...il.com>,
        Russell King <linux@...linux.org.uk>,
        "David S . Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>, <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
        <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, Petr Machata <petrm@...lanox.com>,
        Jiri Pirko <jiri@...dia.com>, Ido Schimmel <idosch@...dia.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next 2/3] mlxsw: spectrum_ptp: use PTP wide message type definitions

On Sunday, 22 November 2020, 15:35:55 CET, Ido Schimmel wrote:
> On Sun, Nov 22, 2020 at 09:26:35AM +0100, Christian Eggers wrote:
> > Use recently introduced PTP wide defines instead of a driver internal
> > enumeration.
> > 
> > Signed-off-by: Christian Eggers <ceggers@....de>
> > Cc: Petr Machata <petrm@...lanox.com>
> > Cc: Jiri Pirko <jiri@...dia.com>
> > Cc: Ido Schimmel <idosch@...dia.com>
> 
> Reviewed-by: Ido Schimmel <idosch@...dia.com>
> 
> But:
> 
> 1. Checkpatch complains about:
> WARNING: From:/Signed-off-by: email address mismatch: 'From: Christian
> Eggers <ceggers@...i.de>' != 'Signed-off-by: Christian Eggers
> <ceggers@....de>'
unfortunately I changed this after running checkpatch. My intention was to 
separate my (private) weekend work from the patches I do while I'm on the job.

> 2. This series does not build, which fails the CI [1][2] and also
> required me to fetch the dependencies that are currently under review
> [3]. I believe it is generally discouraged to create dependencies
> between patch sets that are under review for exactly these reasons. 
this was also not by intention. Vladimir found some files I missed in the
first series. As the whole first series had already been reviewed at that time,
I wasn't sure whether I am allowed to add further patches to it. Additionally
I didn't concern that although my local build is successful, I should wait
until the first series is applied...

> I don't know what are Jakub's preferences, but had this happened on our
> internal patchwork instance, I would just ask the author to submit
> another version with all the patches.
Please let me know how I shall proceed...

> Anyway, I added all six patches to our regression as we have some PTP
> tests. Will let you know tomorrow.
> 
> Thanks
> 
> [1]
> https://lore.kernel.org/netdev/20201122082636.12451-1-ceggers@arri.de/T/#mc
> ef35858585d23b72b8f75450a51618d5c5d3260 [2]
> https://patchwork.hopto.org/static/nipa/389053/11923809/build_allmodconfig_
> warn/summary [3]
> https://patchwork.kernel.org/project/netdevbpf/cover/20201120084106.10046-1
> -ceggers@...i.de/