netdev - Re: [PATCH net-next v7 0/5] 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: <ZTsbG7JMzBwcYzhy@Boquns-Mac-mini.home>
Date: Thu, 26 Oct 2023 19:06:19 -0700
From: Boqun Feng <boqun.feng@...il.com>
To: Andrew Lunn <andrew@...n.ch>
Cc: Miguel Ojeda <miguel.ojeda.sandonis@...il.com>,
	FUJITA Tomonori <fujita.tomonori@...il.com>, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
	rust-for-linux@...r.kernel.org, tmgross@...ch.edu,
	benno.lossin@...ton.me, wedsonaf@...il.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next v7 0/5] Rust abstractions for network PHY drivers

On Fri, Oct 27, 2023 at 01:48:42AM +0200, Andrew Lunn wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 26, 2023 at 12:39:46PM +0200, Miguel Ojeda wrote:
> > On Thu, Oct 26, 2023 at 2:16 AM FUJITA Tomonori
> > <fujita.tomonori@...il.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > This patchset adds Rust abstractions for phylib. It doesn't fully
> > > cover the C APIs yet but I think that it's already useful. I implement
> > > two PHY drivers (Asix AX88772A PHYs and Realtek Generic FE-GE). Seems
> > > they work well with real hardware.
> > 
> > This patch series has had 8 versions in a month. It would be better to
> > wait more between revisions for this kind of patch series, especially
> > when there is discussion still going on in the previous ones and it is
> > a new "type" of code.
> 
> That is actually about right for netdev. As i said, netdev moves fast,
> review comments are expected within about 3 days. We also say don't
> post a new version within 24 hours. So that gives you an idea of the
> min and max.
> 
> It is however good to let discussion reach some sort of conclusion,
> but that also requires prompt discussion. And if that discussion is
> not prompt, posting a new version is a way to kick reviewers into
> action.
> 

I wonder whether that actually helps, if a reviewer takes average four
days to review a version (wants to give accurate comments and doesn't
work on this full time), and the developer send a new version every
three days, there is no possible way for the developer to get the
reviews.

(Honestly, if people could reach out to a conclusion for anything in
three days, the world would be a much more peaceful place ;-))

Regards,
Boqun

> 	Andrew
>