[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20230609231843.6e5a18db@kernel.org>
Date: Fri, 9 Jun 2023 23:18:43 -0700
From: Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>
To: Justin Chen <justin.chen@...adcom.com>
Cc: netdev@...r.kernel.org, bcm-kernel-feedback-list@...adcom.com,
florian.fainelli@...adcom.com, "David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>, Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com>, Andrew
Lunn <andrew@...n.ch>, Daniil Tatianin <d-tatianin@...dex-team.ru>, Ido
Schimmel <idosch@...dia.com>, Marco Bonelli <marco@...eim.net>, Wolfram
Sang <wsa+renesas@...g-engineering.com>, Jiri Pirko <jiri@...nulli.us>, Gal
Pressman <gal@...dia.com>, Vincent Mailhol <mailhol.vincent@...adoo.fr>,
Kuniyuki Iwashima <kuniyu@...zon.com>, open list
<linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 net-next] ethtool: ioctl: improve error checking for
set_wol
On Fri, 9 Jun 2023 13:47:22 -0700 Justin Chen wrote:
> Was thinking more about this patch. I realized we don't account for the
> different sopass case.
> # ethtool -s eth0 wol s sopass 11:22:33:44:55:66
> # ethtool -s eth0 wol s sopass 22:44:55:66:77:88
>
> For this case, the second sopass values won't be stored.
>
> Can you drop this patch? I will submit another version.
We can't drop patches, it'd mess up commit IDs and basing
trees on top of net-next would be a major PITA for people.
Please send a fix on top (with a Fixes tag making it clear
that the problem has not reached any -rc kernel).
Powered by blists - more mailing lists