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  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:   Tue, 4 Oct 2022 13:26:35 -0400
From:   Sean Anderson <>
To:     Jakub Kicinski <>
Cc:     "David S . Miller" <>,
        Madalin Bucur <>,
        Camelia Alexandra Groza <>,, Russell King <>,,,
        Paolo Abeni <>,
        Eric Dumazet <>,
        "linuxppc-dev @ lists . ozlabs . org" <>,
        Benjamin Herrenschmidt <>,
        Ioana Ciornei <>,
        Krzysztof Kozlowski <>,
        Li Yang <>,
        Michael Ellerman <>,
        Paul Mackerras <>,
        Rob Herring <>,
        Shawn Guo <>,
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next v6 0/9] [RFT] net: dpaa: Convert to phylink

On 10/4/22 12:52 PM, Jakub Kicinski wrote:
> On Tue, 4 Oct 2022 11:28:19 -0400 Sean Anderson wrote:
>> I noticed that this series was marked "RFC" in patchwork.
> Because the cover letter has RTF in the subject, presumably.
>> I consider this series ready to apply. I am requesting *testing*, in
>> particular on 10gec/dtsec boards (P-series). Since no one seems to
>> have tried that over the past 4 months that I've been working on this
>> series, perhaps the best way for it to get tested is to apply it...
> You know the situation the best as the author, you should make 
> a clear call on the nature of the posting. It's either RFC/RFT 
> or a ready-to-go-in posting.

Well, I consider the memac stuff to be well tested, but I don't
have 10gec/dtsec hardware. I was hoping that someone with the hardware
might look at this series if I stuck RFT in the subject. I suspect
there are still some bugs in those drivers.

> Maybe in smaller subsystems you can post an RFC/RTF and then it 
> gets applied after some time without a repost but we don't do that.
> The normal processing time for a patch is 1-3 days while we like
> to give people a week to test. So the patches would have to rot in 
> the review queue for extra half a week. At our patch rate this is
> unsustainable.

Well, I have gotten reviews for the device tree stuff, but the core
changes (what I consider to be the actual content of the series) is
missing Reviewed-bys. I don't anticipate making any major changes to
the series unless I get some feedback one way or another. If having
RFT in the subject is preventing that review, I will remove it.


Powered by blists - more mailing lists