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] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <7c638163-38dc-ac9e-3d90-54a3491f3396@linutronix.de>
Date: Wed, 12 Jul 2023 08:53:44 +0200
From: Florian Kauer <florian.kauer@...utronix.de>
To: Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>
Cc: Leon Romanovsky <leon@...nel.org>,
 Tony Nguyen <anthony.l.nguyen@...el.com>, 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

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...

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