netdev - Re: [RFC PATCH v3 net-next 2/6] net: phylink: introduce a generic method for querying PHY in-band autoneg capability

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]

Message-ID: <YUxU4LjGUslOwM2k@shell.armlinux.org.uk>
Date:   Thu, 23 Sep 2021 11:20:16 +0100
From:   "Russell King (Oracle)" <linux@...linux.org.uk>
To:     Vladimir Oltean <vladimir.oltean@....com>
Cc:     "netdev@...r.kernel.org" <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
        Antoine Tenart <atenart@...nel.org>,
        Michael Walle <michael@...le.cc>,
        Heiner Kallweit <hkallweit1@...il.com>,
        Andrew Lunn <andrew@...n.ch>,
        Florian Fainelli <f.fainelli@...il.com>,
        Ioana Ciornei <ioana.ciornei@....com>,
        Maxim Kochetkov <fido_max@...ox.ru>,
        Bjarni Jonasson <bjarni.jonasson@...rochip.com>,
        Steen Hegelund <steen.hegelund@...rochip.com>,
        "UNGLinuxDriver@...rochip.com" <UNGLinuxDriver@...rochip.com>,
        "bcm-kernel-feedback-list@...adcom.com" 
        <bcm-kernel-feedback-list@...adcom.com>,
        Nicolas Ferre <nicolas.ferre@...rochip.com>,
        Claudiu Beznea <claudiu.beznea@...rochip.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v3 net-next 2/6] net: phylink: introduce a generic
 method for querying PHY in-band autoneg capability

On Thu, Sep 23, 2021 at 09:58:18AM +0000, Vladimir Oltean wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 23, 2021 at 09:19:21AM +0100, Russell King (Oracle) wrote:
> > On Wed, Sep 22, 2021 at 11:50:34PM +0000, Vladimir Oltean wrote:
> > > On Thu, Sep 23, 2021 at 12:03:22AM +0100, Russell King (Oracle) wrote:
> > > > On Wed, Sep 22, 2021 at 09:48:28PM +0000, Vladimir Oltean wrote:
> > > > > On Thu, Sep 23, 2021 at 12:31:16AM +0300, Vladimir Oltean wrote:
> > > > > > On Wed, Sep 22, 2021 at 10:22:19PM +0100, Russell King (Oracle) wrote:
> > > > > > > On Wed, Sep 22, 2021 at 09:14:42PM +0300, Vladimir Oltean wrote:
> > > > > > > > +static unsigned int phylink_fixup_inband_aneg(struct phylink *pl,
> > > > > > > > +					      struct phy_device *phy,
> > > > > > > > +					      unsigned int mode)
> > > > > > > > +{
> > > > > > > > +	int ret;
> > > > > > > > +
> > > > > > > > +	ret = phy_validate_inband_aneg(phy, pl->link_interface);
> > > > > > > > +	if (ret == PHY_INBAND_ANEG_UNKNOWN) {
> > > > > > > > +		phylink_dbg(pl,
> > > > > > > > +			    "PHY driver does not report in-band autoneg capability, assuming %s\n",
> > > > > > > > +			    phylink_autoneg_inband(mode) ? "true" : "false");
> > > > > > > > +
> > > > > > > > +		return mode;
> > > > > > > > +	}
> > > > > > > > +
> > > > > > > > +	if (phylink_autoneg_inband(mode) && !(ret & PHY_INBAND_ANEG_ON)) {
> > > > > > > > +		phylink_err(pl,
> > > > > > > > +			    "Requested in-band autoneg but driver does not support this, disabling it.\n");
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > If we add support to the BCM84881 driver to work with
> > > > > > > phy_validate_inband_aneg(), then this will always return
> > > > > > > PHY_INBAND_ANEG_OFF and never PHY_INBAND_ANEG_ON. Consequently,
> > > > > > > this will always produce this "error". It is not an error in the
> > > > > > > SFP case, but it is if firmware is misconfigured.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > So, this needs better handling - we should not be issuing an error-
> > > > > > > level kernel message for something that is "normal".
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Is this better?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > 		phylink_printk(phy_on_sfp(phy) ? KERN_DEBUG : KERN_ERR, pl,
> > > > > > 			       "Requested in-band autoneg but driver does not support this, disabling it.\n");
> > > > >
> > > > > Ah, not sure whether that was a trick question or not, but
> > > > > phylink_fixup_inband_aneg function does not get called for the SFP code
> > > > > path, I even noted this in the commit message but forgot:
> > > >
> > > > No it wasn't a trick question. I thought you were calling
> > > > phylink_fixup_inband_aneg() from phylink_sfp_config(), but I see now
> > > > that you don't. That's what happens when you try and rush to review.
> > >
> > > How did I "rush to review" exactly? I waited for 24 days since the v2
> > > for even a single review comment, with even a ping in between, before
> > > resending the series largely unaltered, just with an extra patch appended.
> >
> > FFS. Are you intentionally trying to misinterpret everything I say?
> > Who here is doing a review? You or me?
> >
> > "That's what happens when you try and rush to review." is a form of
> > speech - clearly the "you" is not aimed at you Vladimir, but me.
> > Let's put this a different way.
> >
> > I am blaming myself for rushing to review this last night.
> >
> > Is that more clear for you?
> 
> Apologies for misinterpreting, even though that was still the only
> interpretation I could give that would make logical sense.

I would encourage you to read up on "second-person self reference".
It's a thing in English since at least the 16th century through to
today, and also exists in other languages.

> Why would you
> rush to review an RFC in the middle of the night if it wasn't me who was
> rushing you, and pinging earlier? And why mention it in the first place?

I think at this point I'm just going to give up for the rest of the
week looking at netdev patches. I really don't want this stress.
And it _IS_ extremely stressful dealing with netdev stuff.

-- 
RMK's Patch system: https://www.armlinux.org.uk/developer/patches/
FTTP is here! 40Mbps down 10Mbps up. Decent connectivity at last!