netdev - Re: [PATCH net 2/2] net: dsa: microchip: lan937x: run phy initialization during each link update

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Thu, 19 Jan 2023 18:27:52 +0100
From:   Andrew Lunn <andrew@...n.ch>
To:     Rakesh.Sankaranarayanan@...rochip.com
Cc:     olteanv@...il.com, davem@...emloft.net, pabeni@...hat.com,
        hkallweit1@...il.com, Arun.Ramadoss@...rochip.com,
        Woojung.Huh@...rochip.com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        linux@...linux.org.uk, f.fainelli@...il.com, kuba@...nel.org,
        edumazet@...gle.com, UNGLinuxDriver@...rochip.com,
        netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH net 2/2] net: dsa: microchip: lan937x: run phy
 initialization during each link update

On Thu, Jan 19, 2023 at 11:34:00AM +0000, Rakesh.Sankaranarayanan@...rochip.com wrote:
> Hi Vladimir,
> Thanks for the comments.
> 
> > 1. Don't prefix a patch with "net: dsa: microchip: " unless it
> > touches
> >    the drivers/net/dsa/microchip/ folder.
> > 
> > 2. Don't make unrelated patches on different drivers part of the same
> >    patch set.
> > 
> I will update the patch in next revision.
> 
> > 3. AFAIU, this is the second fixup of a feature which never worked
> > well
> >    (changing master/slave setting through ethtool). Not sure exactly
> >    what are the rules, but at some point, maintainers might say
> >    "hey, let go, this never worked, just send your fixes to net-
> > next".
> >    I mean: (1) fixes of fixes of smth that never worked can't be sent
> > ad
> >    infinitum, especially if not small and (2) there needs to be some
> >    incentive to submit code that actually works and was tested,
> > rather
> >    than a placeholder which can be fixed up later, right? In this
> > case,
> >    I'm not sure, this seems borderline net-next. Let's see what the
> > PHY
> >    library maintainers think.
> > 
> 
> Thanks for pointing this out. Do you think submitting this patch in
> net-next is the right way?

I would probably go for net-next. That will give it more soak time to
find the next way it is broken....

You might find i gets back ported to stable anyway, due to the ML bot
spotting it.

	 Andrew