netdev - Re: [net-next v3 00/15] Introduce Intel IDPF driver

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]

Message-ID: <965fa809-6cdd-7050-1516-72cc33713972@intel.com>
Date:   Thu, 27 Apr 2023 15:23:12 -0700
From:   Jesse Brandeburg <jesse.brandeburg@...el.com>
To:     Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>,
        "Tantilov, Emil S" <emil.s.tantilov@...el.com>
CC:     <intel-wired-lan@...ts.osuosl.org>, <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
        <joshua.a.hay@...el.com>, <sridhar.samudrala@...el.com>,
        <anthony.l.nguyen@...el.com>, <willemb@...gle.com>,
        <decot@...gle.com>, <pabeni@...hat.com>, <edumazet@...gle.com>,
        <davem@...emloft.net>, <alan.brady@...el.com>,
        <madhu.chittim@...el.com>, <phani.r.burra@...el.com>,
        <shailendra.bhatnagar@...el.com>, <pavan.kumar.linga@...el.com>,
        <shannon.nelson@....com>, <simon.horman@...igine.com>,
        <leon@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [net-next v3 00/15] Introduce Intel IDPF driver

On 4/26/2023 8:29 PM, Jakub Kicinski wrote:
> On Wed, 26 Apr 2023 19:55:06 -0700 Tantilov, Emil S wrote:
>> The v3 series are primarily for review on IWL (to intel-wired-lan,
>> netdev cc-ed) as follow up for the feedback we received on v2.
>
> Well, you put net-next in the subject.

We tried to convey intent via the To: and CC: lists, but this review is
continuing across multiple merge windows and we previously had been
sending with net-next in the Subject and had continued in that vein, so
we intended to convey the "request for continued review" via the
headers, but didn't mean to violate the "net-next is closed! Don't send
patches with the Subject net-next!" rule.

I reviewed these patches but didn't block Emil from sending v3 (right
now vs waiting until net-next opens).

from the other reply:
> RFC patches sent for review only are obviously welcome at any time.

In the past, we had developed an allergy to using RFC when we want
comments back as the patches had sometimes been ignored when RFC and
then heavily commented upon/rejected as a "real submittal". This may not
be the case anymore, and if so, we need to adjust our expectations and
would be glad to do so. In this case, it didn’t feel right to switch a
series from “in-review” to RFC on v3.

> Jesse, does it sound workable to you? What do you have in mind in terms
> of the process long term if/once this driver gets merged?

Sorry for the thrash on this one.

We have a proposal by doing these two things in the future:
1) to: intel-wired-lan, cc: netdev until we've addressed review comments
2) use [iwl-next ] or [iwl-net] in the Subject: when reviewing on
intel-wired-lan, and cc:netdev, to make clear the intent in both headers
and Subject line.

There are two discussions here
1) we can solve the "net-next subject" vs cc:netdev via my proposal
above, would appreciate your feedback.
2) Long term, this driver will join the "normal flow" of individual
patch series that are sent to intel-wired-lan and cc:netdev, but I'd
like those that are sent from Intel non-maintainers to always use
[iwl-next], [iwl-net], and Tony or I will provide series to:
maintainers, cc:netdev with the Subject: [net-next] or [net]