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  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:   Sun, 17 Jan 2021 23:08:58 +0200
From:   Vladimir Oltean <>
To:     Rasmus Villemoes <>
Cc:     Andrew Lunn <>,
        Vivien Didelot <>,
        Florian Fainelli <>,
        "David S. Miller" <>,
        Jakub Kicinski <>,
        Russell King <>,,,
        Tobias Waldekranz <>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/2] net: dsa: mv88e6xxx: fix vlan filtering for 6250

Hi Rasmus,

On Sat, Jan 16, 2021 at 03:39:34AM +0100, Rasmus Villemoes wrote:
> I finally managed to figure out why enabling VLAN filtering on the
> 6250 broke all (ingressing) traffic,
> cf.
> .
> The first patch is the minimal fix and for net, while the second one
> is a little cleanup for net-next.
> Rasmus Villemoes (2):
>   net: dsa: mv88e6xxx: also read STU state in mv88e6250_g1_vtu_getnext
>   net: dsa: mv88e6xxx: use mv88e6185_g1_vtu_getnext() for the 6250

It's strange to put a patch for net and one for net-next in the same
series. Nobody will keep a note for you to apply the second patch after
net has been merged back into net-next. So if you want to keep the
two-patch approach, you'd have to send just the "net" patch now, and the
"net-next" patch later.
But is there any reason why you don't just apply the second patch to

Powered by blists - more mailing lists