netdev - Re: [PATCH net v1 1/1] net: dsa: microchip: make sure drive strength configuration is not lost by soft reset

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: <c26ca1b6-1df5-4c64-a941-a0a2b1c60fe8@lunn.ch>
Date: Mon, 4 Mar 2024 17:12:40 +0100
From: Andrew Lunn <andrew@...n.ch>
To: Oleksij Rempel <o.rempel@...gutronix.de>
Cc: Arun.Ramadoss@...rochip.com, olteanv@...il.com, davem@...emloft.net,
	Woojung.Huh@...rochip.com, pabeni@...hat.com, edumazet@...gle.com,
	f.fainelli@...il.com, kuba@...nel.org, kernel@...gutronix.de,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
	UNGLinuxDriver@...rochip.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH net v1 1/1] net: dsa: microchip: make sure drive strength
 configuration is not lost by soft reset

> I fully agree, but I fear this change would be too big for stable.

How big is the change to do it correctly?

The stable rules are all about making it obviously correct, and so low
risk. In general, a big patch is not always obviously correct. But if
all you are doing is moving code around, no actual change, and it
clearly states that, the size limit should not matter, the risk is
low. Include this information as justification in the commit message,
and it should be O.K.

	Andrew