netdev - Re: [PATCH RESEND iproute2 5.11] iplink_can: add Classical CAN frame LEN8

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: <dccf261d-6cc3-f79a-8044-f0800c88108d@hartkopp.net>
Date:   Wed, 3 Feb 2021 20:04:46 +0100
From:   Oliver Hartkopp <socketcan@...tkopp.net>
To:     David Ahern <dsahern@...il.com>,
        Stephen Hemminger <stephen@...workplumber.org>
Cc:     netdev@...r.kernel.org, linux-can@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH RESEND iproute2 5.11] iplink_can: add Classical CAN frame
 LEN8_DLC support



On 03.02.21 16:47, David Ahern wrote:
> On 2/2/21 10:30 AM, Oliver Hartkopp wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 02.02.21 16:35, David Ahern wrote:
>>> On 2/2/21 3:48 AM, Oliver Hartkopp wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Are you sure this patch is correctly assigned to iproute2-next?
>>>>
>>>> IMO it has to be applied to iproute2 as the functionality is already in
>>>> v5.11 which is in rc6 right now.
>>>>
>>>
>>> new features land in iproute2-next just as they do for the kernel with
>>> net-next.
>>>
>>> Patches adding support for kernel features should be sent in the same
>>> development window if you want the iproute2 support to match kernel
>>> version.
>>>
>>
>> Oh, I followed the commits from iproute2 until the new include files
>> from (in this case) 5.11 pre rc1 had been updated (on 2020-12-24):
>>
>> https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/network/iproute2/iproute2.git/commit/?id=2953235e61eb672bbdd2de84eb5b91c388f9a9b5
>>
>>
>> I thought the uapi updates in iproute2 are *always* pulled from the
>> kernel and not from iprout2-next which was new to me.
> 
> I sync kernel headers for iproute2-next with net-next, not linux-next.

Ok. Got it.

>>
>> Do you expect patches for iproute2-next when the relevant changes become
>> available in linux-next then?
>>
>> Even though I did not know about iproute2-next the patch is needed for
>> the 5.11 kernel (as written in the subject).
>>
> 
> 
>  From a cursory look it appears CAN commits do not go through the netdev
> tree yet the code is under net/can and the admin tool is through
> iproute2 and netdevs. Why is that? If features patches flowed through
> net-next, we would not have this problem.

CAN commits go through linux-can-next -> net-next. Same for linux-can -> 
net.

The len8_dlc patches also went through linux-can-next -> net-next -> net 
-> linux

iproute2 provides the configuration interface for CAN drivers under 
driver/net/can only.

My only fault was, that I did not send the patch for iproute2-next at 
the time when the len8_dlc patches were in net-next, right?

I was just not aware of iproute2-next.

The former patches I posted for iproute2 were always applied by Stephen 
to the iproute2 tree directly.

Regards,
Oliver