netdev - Re: [PATCH 0/2] net: dsa: mv88e6xxx: fix vlan filtering for 6250

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:   Sun, 17 Jan 2021 23:08:58 +0200
From:   Vladimir Oltean <olteanv@...il.com>
To:     Rasmus Villemoes <rasmus.villemoes@...vas.dk>
Cc:     Andrew Lunn <andrew@...n.ch>,
        Vivien Didelot <vivien.didelot@...il.com>,
        Florian Fainelli <f.fainelli@...il.com>,
        "David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
        Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>,
        Russell King <linux@...linux.org.uk>, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        Tobias Waldekranz <tobias@...dekranz.com>
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. https://lore.kernel.org/netdev/6424c14e-bd25-2a06-cf0b-f1a07f9a3604@prevas.dk/
> .
> 
> 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
"net"?