netdev - Re: [PATCH net 1/6] igc: Rename qbv_enable to taprio_offload

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]

Date: Wed, 12 Jul 2023 13:37:14 -0700
From: Tony Nguyen <anthony.l.nguyen@...el.com>
To: Florian Kauer <florian.kauer@...utronix.de>, Jakub Kicinski
	<kuba@...nel.org>
CC: Leon Romanovsky <leon@...nel.org>, <davem@...emloft.net>,
	<pabeni@...hat.com>, <edumazet@...gle.com>, <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
	<kurt@...utronix.de>, <vinicius.gomes@...el.com>,
	<muhammad.husaini.zulkifli@...el.com>, <tee.min.tan@...ux.intel.com>,
	<aravindhan.gunasekaran@...el.com>, <sasha.neftin@...el.com>, Naama Meir
	<naamax.meir@...ux.intel.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net 1/6] igc: Rename qbv_enable to taprio_offload_enable

On 7/11/2023 11:53 PM, Florian Kauer wrote:
> Hi Jakub,
> 
> On 12.07.23 02:58, Jakub Kicinski wrote:
>> On Tue, 11 Jul 2023 09:51:34 +0200 Florian Kauer wrote:
>>>> I understand the intention, but your second patch showed that rename was
>>>> premature.
>>
>> I think it's fine. It's a rename, it can't regress anything.
>> And the separate commit message clearly describing reasoning
>> is good to have.
>>
>>> The second patch does not touch the rename in igc.h and igc_tsn.c...
>>> (and the latter is from the context probably the most relevant one)
>>> But I see what you mean. I am fine with both squashing and keeping it separate,
>>> but I have no idea how the preferred process is since this
>>> is already so far through the pipeline...
>>
>> "This is so far through the pipeline" is an argument which may elicit
>> a very negative reaction upstream :)
> 
> Sorry, I didn't mean to use that as an argument to push it through.
> It is just that since this is my first patch series (except a small
> contribution some years ago), I just honestly do not know what the
> usual practice in such a situation would be.
> 
> E.g. if I would just send a new version and if yes, which tags I would
> keep since it would just be a squash. Especially, if it needs to be
> retested. Or if Tony would directly squash it on his tree, or...

Hi Florian,

I would expect it as a new version of your submission [1]. If anything 
needs to be done/changed on the back end for an updated PR to netdev, 
I'd take care of that.

It does look like this was pulled though so any changes will need to be 
follow-on patches.

Thanks,
Tony

> I personally would have no problem with doing extra work if it improves
> the series, I just do not want to provoke unnecessary work or confusion
> for others by doing it in an unusual way.
> 
> Greetings,
> Florian

[1] 
https://lore.kernel.org/netdev/20230619100858.116286-1-florian.kauer@linutronix.de/