netdev - Re: [PATCH] net: dsa: microchip: Fix gigabit set and get function for KSZ87xx

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <CA+h21hpQwhExOO3cbU8RvYo6ENurf7_o8wh+0yxUrgyD2_2jEA@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Thu, 23 Feb 2023 16:20:59 +0200
From:   Vladimir Oltean <olteanv@...il.com>
To:     Marek Vasut <marex@...x.de>
Cc:     netdev@...r.kernel.org, "David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
        Andrew Lunn <andrew@...n.ch>,
        Arun Ramadoss <arun.ramadoss@...rochip.com>,
        Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>,
        Florian Fainelli <f.fainelli@...il.com>,
        Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>,
        Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com>,
        Russell King <linux@...linux.org.uk>,
        UNGLinuxDriver@...rochip.com,
        Woojung Huh <woojung.huh@...rochip.com>, stable@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] net: dsa: microchip: Fix gigabit set and get function for KSZ87xx

On Thu, Feb 23, 2023 at 06:17:28AM +0100, Marek Vasut wrote:
> No, it does not say it fixes gigabit on KSZ87xx, the commit message says it
> fixes gigabit accessor functions, but what it really fixes (and what is the
> bulk of the commit message) is the incorrectly double-remapped register 0x56
> used in those gigabit accessor functions and which is also used in the
> ksz_[gs]et_xmii function.
>·
> > but the gigabit bug which *was pointed out to you by others* is still
> > there. Your patch fixes something else, but *it says* it fixes a gigabit
> > bug. What I want is for you to describe exactly what it fixes, or if you
> > just don't know, say you noticed the bug during code review and you
> > don't know what is its real life impact (considering pin strapping).
>·
> I believe I wrote what the problem is in my previous email, the incorrectly
> double-remapped XMII_1 register . The register wasn't updated in my case in
> ksz_set_xmii() with RGMII delays.
>·
> Why I picked the is_1Gbit bit for the commit message, probably was tired
> after lengthy debugging session of this problem.

All that is requested from you is to stop being overly defensive about
the commit message that you wrote, and to write another one, which is
more representative of the real life impact that your change has, in
light of the facts that were pointed out during review. Nobody is out to
get you. Open source projects are a collaborative effort, and your part
is to accept that your work can be improved, when given clear and
specific indications from reviewers who have looked at the same problem
as you from an angle independent from yours. If you're so sure that you
cannot improve your work by yourself and ask for this passive-aggressive
hand holding from reviewers, I don't know why you don't just set up your
git trees where there's no review, and that's that.

I don't know why I'm wasting my time to point this out to you, you have
more experience with open source projects than I do, so you should know
better, yet your attitude is completely unproductive.

To me, this topic is closed. You have accused me of having an improper
tone towards you, but you have not explained what was wrong with it,
even when pressed to. I am wasting my time.