netdev - Re: [PATCH net-next] igc: Add support for LEDs on i225/i226

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: <c4f66726-1726-4dd5-98a8-4f8562421168@lunn.ch>
Date: Tue, 13 Feb 2024 21:28:20 +0100
From: Andrew Lunn <andrew@...n.ch>
To: Tony Nguyen <anthony.l.nguyen@...el.com>
Cc: davem@...emloft.net, kuba@...nel.org, pabeni@...hat.com,
	edumazet@...gle.com, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
	Kurt Kanzenbach <kurt@...utronix.de>, sasha.neftin@...el.com,
	Naama Meir <naamax.meir@...ux.intel.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next] igc: Add support for LEDs on i225/i226

On Tue, Feb 13, 2024 at 11:09:47AM -0800, Tony Nguyen wrote:
> 
> 
> On 2/13/2024 10:49 AM, Andrew Lunn wrote:
> > On Tue, Feb 13, 2024 at 10:41:37AM -0800, Tony Nguyen wrote:
> > > From: Kurt Kanzenbach <kurt@...utronix.de>
> > > 
> > > Add support for LEDs on i225/i226. The LEDs can be controlled via sysfs
> > > from user space using the netdev trigger. The LEDs are named as
> > > igc-<bus><device>-<led> to be easily identified.
> > > 
> > > Offloading link speed and activity are supported. Other modes are simulated
> > > in software by using on/off. Tested on Intel i225.
> > > 
> > > Signed-off-by: Kurt Kanzenbach <kurt@...utronix.de>
> > > Reviewed-by: Andrew Lunn <andrew@...n.ch>
> > > Tested-by: Naama Meir <naamax.meir@...ux.intel.com>
> > > Signed-off-by: Tony Nguyen <anthony.l.nguyen@...el.com>
> > 
> > Hi Tony
> > 
> > Did you change anything? I'm just wondering why you posted this,
> > rather than just giving an Acked-by:
> 
> Hi Andrew,
> 
> No changes from me. I normally coalesce the IWL patches after our validation
> and send them on to netdev as a pull request. However, there's no other 1GbE
> patches in the pipeline so I'm sending the single patch. I believe this is
> the preference vs adding an Acked-by and having the netdev maintainers go
> back in history to pull this patch out.

I don't normally get involved in this, so maybe there is a process i
don't know about.

v3 is still in patchworks:

https://patchwork.ozlabs.org/project/intel-wired-lan/list/?series=393838

State: Awaiting Upstream

Does that mean you? Would not just giving an Acked-by be enough? Now
we have it twice in patchworks, and you did not mark your version as
v4, so is there a danger we get the different versions mixed up?

    Andrew