netdev - RE: [PATCH net-next v2 0/9] Add support for OPEN Alliance 10BASE-T1x MACPHY Serial Interface

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: 
 <BY5PR02MB678696DBEF2A6A5F5E61A02F9D572@BY5PR02MB6786.namprd02.prod.outlook.com>
Date: Wed, 21 Feb 2024 12:21:23 +0000
From: Piergiorgio Beruto <Pier.Beruto@...emi.com>
To: "Parthiban.Veerasooran@...rochip.com"
	<Parthiban.Veerasooran@...rochip.com>,
        "andrew@...n.ch" <andrew@...n.ch>
CC: "davem@...emloft.net" <davem@...emloft.net>,
        "edumazet@...gle.com"
	<edumazet@...gle.com>,
        "kuba@...nel.org" <kuba@...nel.org>,
        "pabeni@...hat.com" <pabeni@...hat.com>,
        "Steen.Hegelund@...rochip.com"
	<Steen.Hegelund@...rochip.com>,
        "netdev@...r.kernel.org"
	<netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
        "Horatiu.Vultur@...rochip.com"
	<Horatiu.Vultur@...rochip.com>,
        "Woojung.Huh@...rochip.com"
	<Woojung.Huh@...rochip.com>,
        "Nicolas.Ferre@...rochip.com"
	<Nicolas.Ferre@...rochip.com>,
        "UNGLinuxDriver@...rochip.com"
	<UNGLinuxDriver@...rochip.com>,
        "Thorsten.Kummermehr@...rochip.com"
	<Thorsten.Kummermehr@...rochip.com>,
        Selvamani Rajagopal
	<Selvamani.Rajagopal@...emi.com>
Subject: RE: [PATCH net-next v2 0/9] Add support for OPEN Alliance 10BASE-T1x
 MACPHY Serial Interface

Hi all,
thank you for this discussion.

Since this framework is supposed to be a base for every potential OA-TC6 MACPHY implementation, I propose this could be a joint work.
Selvamani and I spotted some points in the code where we could optimize the performance and we would like to add the required changes to accommodate all potential implementations.

Would it be possible to share with the group the latest patches?

Thanks,
Piergiorgio

-----Original Message-----
From: Parthiban.Veerasooran@...rochip.com <Parthiban.Veerasooran@...rochip.com> 
Sent: 21 February, 2024 06:15
To: andrew@...n.ch
Cc: davem@...emloft.net; edumazet@...gle.com; kuba@...nel.org; pabeni@...hat.com; Steen.Hegelund@...rochip.com; netdev@...r.kernel.org; Horatiu.Vultur@...rochip.com; Woojung.Huh@...rochip.com; Nicolas.Ferre@...rochip.com; UNGLinuxDriver@...rochip.com; Thorsten.Kummermehr@...rochip.com; Piergiorgio Beruto <Pier.Beruto@...emi.com>; Selvamani Rajagopal <Selvamani.Rajagopal@...emi.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next v2 0/9] Add support for OPEN Alliance 10BASE-T1x MACPHY Serial Interface

[External Email]: This email arrived from an external source - Please exercise caution when opening any attachments or clicking on links.

On 19/02/24 8:00 pm, Andrew Lunn wrote:
> EXTERNAL EMAIL: Do not click links or open attachments unless you know 
> the content is safe
> 
>> Hi Andrew,
>>
>>   From Microchip side, we haven't stopped/postponed this framework 
>> development. We are already working on it. It is in the final stage now.
>> We are doing internal reviews right now and we expect that in 3 weeks 
>> time frame in the mainline again. We will send a new version (v3) of 
>> this patch series soon.
> 
> Hi Parthiban
> 
> It is good to here you are still working on it.
> 
> A have a few comments about how Linux mainline works. It tends to be 
> very iterative. Cycles tend to be fast. You will probably get review 
> comments within a couple of days of posting code. You often see 
> developers posting a new version within a few days, maybe a week. If 
> reviewers have asked for large changes, it can take longer, but 
> general, the cycles are short.
> 
> When you say you need three weeks for internal review, that to me 
> seems very slow. Is it so hard to get access to internal reviewers? Do 
> you have a very formal review process? More waterfall than iterative 
> development? I would suggest you try to keep your internal reviews 
> fast and low overhead, because you will be doing it lots of times as 
> we iterate the framework.

Hi Andrew,

We understand your concern. We are working on this task with full focus. 
Initially there were some implementation change proposal from our internal reviewers to improve the performance and code quality. 
Consequently the testing of the new implementation took some while to bring it to a good shape.

Our internal reviewers Steen Hegelund and Horatiu Vultur are actively participating in reviewing my patches. I already have talked to them and we are in progress together to get the next version ready for the submission. We are trying our level best and working hard to push the next set of patches to the mainline as soon as possible.

Best regards,
Parthiban V
> 
>          Andrew
>