netdev - Re: [PATCH net-next 2/4] net: dsa: realtek: keep default LED state in rtl8366rb

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: <82d38961-8792-49ea-8c9c-5214669e0ef6@kernel.org>
Date: Mon, 11 Mar 2024 17:19:59 +0100
From: Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk@...nel.org>
To: Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>
Cc: Simon Horman <horms@...nel.org>,
 Luiz Angelo Daros de Luca <luizluca@...il.com>,
 Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@...aro.org>,
 Alvin Šipraga <alsi@...g-olufsen.dk>,
 Andrew Lunn <andrew@...n.ch>, Florian Fainelli <f.fainelli@...il.com>,
 Vladimir Oltean <olteanv@...il.com>, "David S. Miller"
 <davem@...emloft.net>, Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>,
 Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com>, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
 linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next 2/4] net: dsa: realtek: keep default LED state in
 rtl8366rb

On 11/03/2024 17:11, Jakub Kicinski wrote:
> On Sun, 10 Mar 2024 12:47:19 +0100 Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
>>> FWIIW, I think this relates to review of an RFC of this patch-set.
>>>
>>> https://lore.kernel.org/netdev/CACRpkda8tQ2u4+jCrpOQXbBd84oW98vmiDgU+GgdYCHuZfn49A@mail.gmail.com/  
>>
>> OK, then this is v2. RFC is state of patch, not some sort of version. Or
>> just use b4 which handles this automatically...
> 
> Eh, hum. He does according to the X-Mailer header. More importantly
> I thought the RFC to PATCH transition resetting version numbering
> is how we always operated. Maybe b4 should be fixed?

No, it does not reset the version number, because RFC->PATCH does not
mean that suddenly there were no reviews or changes. We all count in
brains from 1, so whatever we see - RFC, RFT, RFkisses or hugs - is the
first version we see. Then next one, whatever it is called PATCH,
RF-non-comments, RFmorekisses, is v2.

There are RFCs which go to "v4", with significant discussion and review,
thus natural next version is "5", not "1".

It's extremely confusing for me to be involved in some sort four
revisions of RFC and the suddenly see v1. What happened with my
comments? Why its state should be the same as new submission state?

Plus, people do not understand or do not have the same meaning of RFC.
Some people send RFC with meaning "do not apply, just some
work-in-progress" but some send as regular patch with intention to
apply. I really, really saw exactly these two approaches.

So no, after RFC v1, goes PATCH v2, after RFC v5, goes PATCH v6.

Best regards,
Krzysztof