netdev - Re: [PATCH net v2] net: phy: marvell: Fix RGMII Tx/Rx delays setting in 88e1121-compatible PHYs

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: <20220207112239.20ae3bfe@kicinski-fedora-pc1c0hjn.dhcp.thefacebook.com>
Date:   Mon, 7 Feb 2022 11:22:39 -0800
From:   Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>
To:     Serge Semin <Sergey.Semin@...kalelectronics.ru>
Cc:     Serge Semin <fancer.lancer@...il.com>,
        Pavel Parkhomenko <Pavel.Parkhomenko@...kalelectronics.ru>,
        Andrew Lunn <andrew@...n.ch>,
        Heiner Kallweit <hkallweit1@...il.com>,
        Russell King <linux@...linux.org.uk>,
        "David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
        Florian Fainelli <f.fainelli@...il.com>,
        Alexey Malahov <Alexey.Malahov@...kalelectronics.ru>,
        Russell King <rmk+kernel@...linux.org.uk>,
        <stable@...r.kernel.org>, <netdev@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net v2] net: phy: marvell: Fix RGMII Tx/Rx delays
 setting in 88e1121-compatible PHYs

On Mon, 7 Feb 2022 21:33:19 +0300 Serge Semin wrote:
> > I see it's marked as Superseded in patchwork, but can't track down a v3.  
> 
> We had accidentally sent out a temporal v2 version before submitting this
> one. The failed patch is here
> Link: https://lore.kernel.org/stable/20220205190814.20282-1-Pavel.Parkhomenko@baikalelectronics.ru/
> But the message was sent to Russel and to the stable mailing list only
> with no netdev list being in Cc. I thought if the right v2 was sent
> out after the failed one, then even if patchwork somehow gets to catch
> both of the messages, the former patch would have at least superseded
> the later one. It appears I was wrong. Sorry about that. Do you want
> us to resend this patch as v3 to have a proper patchwork status?

No need, I set it back to New, thanks!