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
| ||
|
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
Powered by blists - more mailing lists