netdev - Re: [PATCH] net: dsa: b53: Fix IMP port setup on BCM5301x

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: <5de7487c-4ffe-bca4-f9a3-e437fc63926b@gmail.com>
Date:   Sun, 5 Sep 2021 14:04:06 -0700
From:   Florian Fainelli <f.fainelli@...il.com>
To:     patchwork-bot+netdevbpf@...nel.org,
        Rafał Miłecki <zajec5@...il.com>
Cc:     andrew@...n.ch, vivien.didelot@...il.com, olteanv@...il.com,
        davem@...emloft.net, kuba@...nel.org, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
        rafal@...ecki.pl
Subject: Re: [PATCH] net: dsa: b53: Fix IMP port setup on BCM5301x

On 9/5/2021 11:10 AM, patchwork-bot+netdevbpf@...nel.org wrote:
> Hello:
> 
> This patch was applied to netdev/net.git (refs/heads/master):
> 
> On Sun,  5 Sep 2021 19:23:28 +0200 you wrote:
>> From: Rafał Miłecki <rafal@...ecki.pl>
>>
>> Broadcom's b53 switches have one IMP (Inband Management Port) that needs
>> to be programmed using its own designed register. IMP port may be
>> different than CPU port - especially on devices with multiple CPU ports.
>>
>> For that reason it's required to explicitly note IMP port index and
>> check for it when choosing a register to use.
>>
>> [...]
> 
> Here is the summary with links:
>    - net: dsa: b53: Fix IMP port setup on BCM5301x
>      https://git.kernel.org/netdev/net/c/63f8428b4077
> 
> You are awesome, thank you!
> --
> Deet-doot-dot, I am a bot.
> https://korg.docs.kernel.org/patchwork/pwbot.html

David, can you please wait more than 1h 47 minutes before applying a 
patch to give a review? This is absolutely not the way this should have 
been fixed because it adds to the driver's port information burden 
rather than not.

This is not the first time this has happened, and this is really really 
starting to annoy the crap out of me. While I am appreciative of your 
responsiveness in applying patches, I am definitively not when it comes 
to not allowing a proper review to happen. So please, I am begging you, 
wait at least 12h, ideally 24h before applying a patch. You have 
patchwork, you have responsive maintainers, so nothing will get dropped 
on the floor.

Thank you

PS: for some reason Rafal's email address got turned into: "Rafał 
Miłecki <zajec5@...il.com>"@ci.codeaurora.org. You might want to look 
into that as well.
-- 
Florian