netdev - Re: [PATCH v2 0/3] Rust abstractions for network PHY drivers

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: <40859cee-2ee7-4065-82d0-3841e5d7838f@lunn.ch>
Date: Fri, 6 Oct 2023 16:47:27 +0200
From: Andrew Lunn <andrew@...n.ch>
To: FUJITA Tomonori <fujita.tomonori@...il.com>
Cc: miguel.ojeda.sandonis@...il.com, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
	rust-for-linux@...r.kernel.org, greg@...ah.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 0/3] Rust abstractions for network PHY drivers

> A tree only that contains patches 2 and 3 allow the driver to be
> enabled, I think. The driver depends on CONFIG_RUST, which might
> doesn't have PHY bindings support (the first patch).

This is part of why i said there should be a Kconfig symbol
CONFIG_RUST_PHYLIB_BINDING or similar. With only patches 2 and 3, that
would not exists, and so you cannot enable the driver. Once all the
patches meet up in linux-next, you have both parts, and you can enable
it.

> So I think that merging the patchset through a single tree is easier;
> netdev or rust.
> 
> Miguel, how do you prefer to merge the patchset?

What are the merge conflicts looking like? What has happened in the
past? Or is this the first driver to actually get this far towards
being merged?

      Andrew