netdev - Re: [PATCH v2 1/2] Revert "mlxsw: core: Use different get_trend() callbacks for different thermal zones"

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: <YvoybKfgNnHi36dN@shredder>
Date:   Mon, 15 Aug 2022 14:47:56 +0300
From:   Ido Schimmel <idosch@...dia.com>
To:     Daniel Lezcano <daniel.lezcano@...aro.org>
Cc:     rafael@...nel.org, vadimp@...lanox.com, davem@...emloft.net,
        netdev@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        Vadim Pasternak <vadimp@...dia.com>,
        Petr Machata <petrm@...dia.com>,
        Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>,
        Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>,
        Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/2] Revert "mlxsw: core: Use different get_trend()
 callbacks for different thermal zones"

On Mon, Aug 15, 2022 at 11:10:31AM +0200, Daniel Lezcano wrote:
> This reverts commit 2dc2f760052da4925482ecdcdc5c94d4a599153c.
> 
> As discussed in the thread:
> 
> https://lore.kernel.org/all/f3c62ebe-7d59-c537-a010-bff366c8aeba@linaro.org/
> 
> the feature provided by commits 2dc2f760052da and 6f73862fabd93 is
> actually already handled by the thermal framework via the cooling
> device state aggregation, thus all this code is pointless.
> 
> No conflict happened when reverting the patch.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Daniel Lezcano <daniel.lezcano@...aro.org>
> Tested-by: Vadim Pasternak <vadimp@...dia.com>

Daniel, the intention is to send these patches to mainline as part of
your 6.1 pull request?

I discussed it with Vadim yesterday and we do not expect changes in the
file during the current cycle so this is OK as far as we are concerned,
but I believe this will also need an ack from one of the netdev
maintainers.

Thanks