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
| ||
|
Message-ID: <978883c1-ffaa-413f-87f9-1956108f0d60@intel.com> Date: Tue, 19 Dec 2023 10:04:02 +0100 From: Alexander Lobakin <aleksander.lobakin@...el.com> To: Alexander Potapenko <glider@...gle.com>, Yury Norov <yury.norov@...il.com> CC: Marcin Szycik <marcin.szycik@...ux.intel.com>, Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>, <davem@...emloft.net>, Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>, <pabeni@...hat.com>, Tony Nguyen <anthony.l.nguyen@...el.com>, <michal.swiatkowski@...ux.intel.com>, <wojciech.drewek@...el.com>, <idosch@...dia.com>, <jesse.brandeburg@...el.com>, <intel-wired-lan@...ts.osuosl.org>, <netdev@...r.kernel.org>, <jiri@...nulli.us> Subject: Re: [Intel-wired-lan] [PATCH iwl-next v4 0/7] Add PFCP filter support From: Alexander Potapenko <glider@...gle.com> Date: Mon, 18 Dec 2023 17:16:09 +0100 > On Mon, Dec 18, 2023 at 4:57 PM Yury Norov <yury.norov@...il.com> wrote: >> >> + Alexander Potapenko >> >> On Mon, Dec 18, 2023 at 01:47:01PM +0100, Alexander Lobakin wrote: [...] >>> Hey Yury, >>> >>> Given that PFCP will be resent in the next window... >>> >>> Your "boys" tree is in fact self-contained -- those are mostly >>> optimizations and cleanups, and for the new API -- bitmap_{read,write}() >>> -- it has internal users (after "bitmap: make bitmap_{get,set}_value8() >>> use bitmap_{read,write}()"). IOW, I don't see a reason for not merging >>> it into your main for-next tree (this week :p). >>> What do you think? >> >> I think that there's already enough mess with this patch. Alexander >> submitted new version of his MTE series together with the patch. > > Yeah, sorry about that. Because the MTE part of the patches was still > awaiting review, I thought it would be better to land the bitmap API > separately, but as you pointed out there should be at least one user > for it, which it wouldn't have in that case. > > I don't have a strong preference about whether to submit the patches > before or after the end of year - in fact I don't think they are > urgent enough, and we'd better postpone them till January. > > So unless Alexander has urgent fixes depending on my bitmap patches, > I'd suggest waiting till they are taken via the arm64 tree. No, nothing urgent. Sounds good, no need to rush at the end of the dev cycle. > >> https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/ZXtciaxTKFBiui%2FX@yury-ThinkPad/T/ >> >> Now you're asking me to merge it separately. I don't want to undercut >> arm64 folks. >> >> Can you guys decide what you want? If you want to move >> bitmap_read/write() with my branch, I need to send it in -next for >> testing ASAP. And for that, as I already said, I need at least one >> active user in current kernel tree. (Yes, bitmap_get_value8() counts.) >> >> If you want to move it this way, please resend all the patches >> together. [...] Thanks, Olek
Powered by blists - more mailing lists