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]

Date: Sat, 07 Oct 2023 12:26:10 +0900 (JST)
From: FUJITA Tomonori <fujita.tomonori@...il.com>
To: tmgross@...ch.edu
Cc: andrew@...n.ch, fujita.tomonori@...il.com,
 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

On Fri, 6 Oct 2023 19:37:15 -0400
Trevor Gross <tmgross@...ch.edu> wrote:

> On Fri, Oct 6, 2023 at 10:47 AM Andrew Lunn <andrew@...n.ch> wrote:
>> > 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? [...]
> 
> Miguel has said before that if subsystems are comfortable bringing
> rust through their trees then they are welcome to do so, which helps
> get a better idea of how everything works together. If you prefer not
> to, it can come through rust-next with no problem.

It makes sense because these bindings are maintained by subsystems.

I'll send patches with 'net-next' tag in the next round.