netdev - Re: [PATCH net-next v5 2/2] net/8390: apne.c - add 100 Mbit support to apne.c driver

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Mon, 21 Jun 2021 07:36:26 +1200
From:   Michael Schmitz <schmitzmic@...il.com>
To:     Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@...ux-m68k.org>
Cc:     Linux/m68k <linux-m68k@...r.kernel.org>,
        ALeX Kazik <alex@...ik.de>, netdev <netdev@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next v5 2/2] net/8390: apne.c - add 100 Mbit support
 to apne.c driver

Hi Geert,

On 20/06/21 11:47 pm, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
>
>>> Thanks for your patch!
>>>
>>> Note that this patch has a hard dependency on "[PATCH v5 1/2] m68k:
>>> io_mm.h - add APNE 100 MBit support" in the series, so it must not
>>> be applied to the netdev tree yet.
>> Hmm - so we ought to protect the new code by
>>
>> #ifdef ARCH_HAVE_16BIT_PCMCIA
>>
>> and set that in the m68k machine Kconfig in the first patch?
>>
>> (It's almost, but not quite like a config option :-)
> No, we just manage dependencies, so either:
>    1. Patch 2 cannot go in until patch 1 is upstream,
>    2. One subsystem maintainer gives an Acked-by for one patch,so
>      the other subsystem maintainer can apply both patches.

I haven't had any review from netdev yet - option 1 looks more feasible 
(if you want to carry a patch that's useless without its follow-up). And 
with the autoprobe failing (if I understood Alex right), I'll have to 
think of something else or drop that patch again.

Is there anything (aside from linking to the e-mail thread) that I can 
do to help netdev maintainers locate the first patch? The commit ID 
won't remain the same once accepted upstream, am I right?

Cheers,

     Michael

>
> Gr{oetje,eeting}s,
>
>                          Geert
>