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]

Date:   Sun, 5 Sep 2021 23:45:06 +0200
From:   Rafał Miłecki <zajec5@...il.com>
To:     Florian Fainelli <f.fainelli@...il.com>,
        patchwork-bot+netdevbpf@...nel.org
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 05.09.2021 23:04, Florian Fainelli wrote:
> 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.

I was also surprised a bit with that quick apply. I prefer to have my
code reviewed properly.

I'm OK with a revert and working on a better fix (or change for
net-next) if that is a valid option. I can also work on fixing that fix
as I surely don't mean to leave code as is when maintainer isn't happy
about it.