netdev - Re: [PATCH v5 net-next 0/6] net: ethernet: ti: am65-cpsw: Fix set channel operation

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:   Tue, 6 Dec 2022 13:49:50 +0200
From:   Leon Romanovsky <leon@...nel.org>
To:     Roger Quadros <rogerq@...nel.org>
Cc:     davem@...emloft.net, maciej.fijalkowski@...el.com, kuba@...nel.org,
        andrew@...n.ch, edumazet@...gle.com, pabeni@...hat.com,
        vigneshr@...com, linux-omap@...r.kernel.org,
        netdev@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 net-next 0/6] net: ethernet: ti: am65-cpsw: Fix set
 channel operation

On Tue, Dec 06, 2022 at 12:15:17PM +0200, Roger Quadros wrote:
> On 06/12/2022 12:05, Leon Romanovsky wrote:
> > On Tue, Dec 06, 2022 at 11:44:13AM +0200, Roger Quadros wrote:
> >> Hi,
> >>
> >> This contains a critical bug fix for the recently merged suspend/resume
> >> support [1] that broke set channel operation. (ethtool -L eth0 tx <n>)
> >>
> >> As there were 2 dependent patches on top of the offending commit [1]
> >> first revert them and then apply them back after the correct fix.
> > 
> > Why did you chose revert and reapply almost same patch instead of simply
> > fixing what is missing?
> 
> v1 & 2 of this series were doing that but it was difficult to review.
> This is because we are taking a different approach so we have to undo
> most of the things done earlier.
> 
> It was suggested during review that reverting and fresh patch was better.

Thanks.