netdev - Re: [Intel-wired-lan] [PATCH 2/9] e1000e: Remove redundant pci_enable_pcie_error

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:   Thu, 19 Jan 2023 21:35:57 -0800
From:   Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>
To:     Tony Nguyen <anthony.l.nguyen@...el.com>
Cc:     Bjorn Helgaas <helgaas@...nel.org>, <linux-pci@...r.kernel.org>,
        Bjorn Helgaas <bhelgaas@...gle.com>, <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
        <intel-wired-lan@...ts.osuosl.org>, <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Jesse Brandeburg <jesse.brandeburg@...el.com>,
        Sathyanarayanan Kuppuswamy 
        <sathyanarayanan.kuppuswamy@...ux.intel.com>
Subject: Re: [Intel-wired-lan] [PATCH 2/9] e1000e: Remove redundant
 pci_enable_pcie_error_reporting()

On Thu, 19 Jan 2023 13:31:39 -0800 Tony Nguyen wrote:
> > Thanks a million for taking a look at these, Tony!
> > 
> > These driver patches are all independent and have no dependency on the
> > 1/9 PCI/AER patch.  What's your opinion on merging these?  Should they
> > go via netdev?  Should they be squashed into a single patch that does
> > all the Intel drivers at once?
> > 
> > I'm happy to squash them and/or merge them via the PCI tree, whatever
> > is easiest.  
> 
> Since there's no dependency, IMO, it'd make sense to go through 
> Intel-wired-lan/netdev. Keeping them per driver is fine.

Ah, damn, I spammed Bjorn with the same question because email was
pooped most of the day :/ Reportedly not vger, email in general but 
fool me once...

Tony, if you could take these via your tree that'd be best.