netdev - Re: [EXT] Re: [PATCH v2 net 2/2] net: fec: restructuring the functions to avoid forward declarations

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: <ZFKw5seP5WclDCG2@kernel.org>
Date: Wed, 3 May 2023 21:07:18 +0200
From: Simon Horman <horms@...nel.org>
To: Shenwei Wang <shenwei.wang@....com>
Cc: Andrew Lunn <andrew@...n.ch>, Wei Fang <wei.fang@....com>,
	"David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
	Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>,
	Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>, Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com>,
	Clark Wang <xiaoning.wang@....com>,
	dl-linux-imx <linux-imx@....com>,
	Alexei Starovoitov <ast@...nel.org>,
	Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net>,
	Jesper Dangaard Brouer <hawk@...nel.org>,
	John Fastabend <john.fastabend@...il.com>,
	Alexander Lobakin <alexandr.lobakin@...el.com>,
	"netdev@...r.kernel.org" <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
	"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	"imx@...ts.linux.dev" <imx@...ts.linux.dev>
Subject: Re: [EXT] Re: [PATCH v2 net 2/2] net: fec: restructuring the
 functions to avoid forward declarations

On Wed, May 03, 2023 at 06:41:59PM +0000, Shenwei Wang wrote:

...

> > > > On Tue, May 02, 2023 at 05:08:18PM -0500, Shenwei Wang wrote:
> > > > > The patch reorganizes functions related to XDP frame transmission,
> > > > > moving them above the fec_enet_run_xdp implementation. This
> > > > > eliminates the need for forward declarations of these functions.
> > > >
> > > > I'm confused. Are these two patches in the wrong order?
> > > >
> > > > The reason that i asked you to fix the forward declaration in
> > > > net-next is that it makes your fix two patches. Sometimes that is
> > > > not obvious to people back porting patches, and one gets lost,
> > > > causing build problems. So it is better to have a single patch which
> > > > is maybe not 100% best practice merged to stable, and then a cleanup patch
> > merged to the head of development.
> > > >
> > >
> > > If that is the case, we should forgo the second patch. Its purpose was
> > > to reorganize function order such that the subsequent patch to
> > > net-next enabling XDP_TX would not encounter forward declaration issues.
> > 
> > I think a good plan would be, as I understood Andrew's original suggestion,
> > to:
> > 
> > 1. Only have patch 2/2, targeted at 'net', for now 2. Later, once that patch has
> > been accepted into 'net', 'net-next' has
> >    reopened, and that patch is present in 'net-next', then follow-up
> >    with patch 1/2, which is a cleanup.
> 
> So should I re-submit the patch? Or you just take the 1st patch and drop
> the 2nd one?

net and net-next work on a granularity of patch-sets.
So I would suggest re-submitting only patch 2/2 for 'net'.

I would also suggest waiting 24h between posting v2 and v3,
as per https://kernel.org/doc/html/next/process/maintainer-netdev.html