netdev - Re: [PATCH net-next 0/4] Fix broken PTP over IP on Ocelot switches

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:   Fri, 26 Nov 2021 11:55:13 -0800
From:   Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>
To:     Vladimir Oltean <vladimir.oltean@....com>
Cc:     "netdev@...r.kernel.org" <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
        "David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
        Claudiu Manoil <claudiu.manoil@....com>,
        Andrew Lunn <andrew@...n.ch>,
        Florian Fainelli <f.fainelli@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next 0/4] Fix broken PTP over IP on Ocelot switches

On Fri, 26 Nov 2021 19:38:07 +0000 Vladimir Oltean wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 26, 2021 at 10:35:07AM -0800, Jakub Kicinski wrote:
> > Alright, but please expect more push back going forward. Linus was
> > pretty clear on what constitutes -rc material in the past, and we're
> > sending quite a lot of code in each week..  
> 
> Thanks, and please don't hesitate to push back.
> 
> If for any reason you're not comfortable including these in the "net"
> pull request, I'm okay with that, but at least allow me to keep the
> "Fixes:" tags on the patches (because they do address incomplete
> functionality), and consider applying them to net-next. Then maybe the
> AUTOSEL people will notice and pick them up :)

Yeah, but then we'll get the opposite complaint of "why is this in -next
if it's a fix".

> Anyway I've noticed that the linux-stable maintainers are much more
> generous these days when it comes to backporting. For example, I shouted
> a few months ago that a relatively large quantity of DSA refactoring
> patches was brought into "stable" because of some other patch that
> wouldn't apply 100% cleanly:
> https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20210316162236.vmvulf3wlmtowdvf@skbuf/
> But in the meantime I got used to it and I'm a bit more relaxed about it now.

Indeed, I'll admit, it feels like the practice of stable is at odds with
the expectations of -rc releases.

If you're confident the changes are good, that's fine by me. It's still
relatively early -rc days.