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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket
[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date:   Mon, 18 Jul 2022 17:25:05 +0300
From:   Vladimir Oltean <>
To:     "Russell King (Oracle)" <>
Cc:     Jakub Kicinski <>, Andrew Lunn <>,
        Heiner Kallweit <>,
        Alexandre Belloni <>,
        Alvin Šipraga <>,
        Andy Shevchenko <>,
        Claudiu Manoil <>,
        Daniel Scally <>,
        "David S. Miller" <>,
        DENG Qingfang <>,
        Eric Dumazet <>,
        Florian Fainelli <>,
        George McCollister <>,
        Greg Kroah-Hartman <>,
        Hauke Mehrtens <>,
        Heikki Krogerus <>,
        Kurt Kanzenbach <>,
        Landen Chao <>,
        Linus Walleij <>,,,,
        Marek Behún <>,
        Matthias Brugger <>,, Paolo Abeni <>,
        "Rafael J. Wysocki" <>,
        Sakari Ailus <>,
        Sean Wang <>,,
        Vivien Didelot <>,
        Woojung Huh <>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next 0/6] net: dsa: always use phylink

On Mon, Jul 18, 2022 at 02:02:33PM +0100, Russell King (Oracle) wrote:
> In the second RFC, I stated:
> "Some of the questions from the original RFC remain though, so I've
> included that text below. I'm guessing as they remain unanswered that
> no one has any opinions on them?"
> Clearly, I was soliciting answers from _everyone_ who received this,
> not just the two people in the To: header.
> This is _not_ the issue I'm raising. I am complaining about the
> "default_interface" issue that you've only piped up about, despite
> (a) an explicit question having been asked about that approach, (b) it
> appearing in not just one, not two, not three but four RFC series sent,
> and only finally being raised when a non-RFC series was sent.
> This whole debarcle could have been avoided with providing feedback at
> an earlier stage, when I explicitly requested it _several_ times.

Please stop shoving quotes of your questions in my face, I'm still glad
I deleted my draft responses to them when they were originally asked,
because *when* (not *if*) things will have went sideways, I would have
blamed myself for people wanting to test/respond but not having whom to
talk to, because you rage quit.

You need to understand that a voluntary reviewer doesn't have a duty to
respond to you on any certain date, and that I'm not obliged to shut up
about where to place "default_interface" because I haven't said anything
about it in the first N series. I was on the fence whether it was even
worth saying anything about it at all, and the only reason I decided to
do it was because the patch to change every DSA driver's phylink_get_caps()
prototype now conflicts with concurrent changes done to drivers, and
doesn't apply to net-next anyway:
So I really can't be reasonably accused of wanting to stall this series.

You have no reason whatsoever to pick a fight with me, so please stop it.

Powered by blists - more mailing lists