netdev - Re: [RFC PATCH net-next 2/2] net: ethernet: ti: inter-core-virt-eth: Register as network device

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20240203193809.GA706477@kernel.org>
Date: Sat, 3 Feb 2024 19:38:09 +0000
From: Simon Horman <horms@...nel.org>
To: Ravi Gunasekaran <r-gunasekaran@...com>
Cc: davem@...emloft.net, edumazet@...gle.com, kuba@...nel.org,
	pabeni@...hat.com, andrew@...n.ch, rogerq@...nel.org,
	netdev@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	s-vadapalli@...com, srk@...com
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH net-next 2/2] net: ethernet: ti: inter-core-virt-eth:
 Register as network device

On Thu, Feb 01, 2024 at 07:54:24PM +0530, Ravi Gunasekaran wrote:

...

> Thanks for taking time to review the patches.
> 
> The primary intention of this series was to know if the RPMsg based approach
> would be upstream friendly or not. But I would not like to use that as an excuse
> for not fixing checks/warnings/errors reported by checkpatch completely.
> Even though if its RFC, I will treat it as an actual upstream patch  and address the
> checkpatch/smatch/sparse findings or atleast mention in the cover letter that the
> findings have not been fully addressed.

Understood. TBH, I am unsure of the value of this kind of review for an RFC
- I understand it is important to get the bigger picture questions out of
the way at this point.

...