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: <20240311-chowchow-of-premium-piety-9e4a0d@lemur>
Date: Mon, 11 Mar 2024 14:40:44 -0400
From: Konstantin Ryabitsev <konstantin@...uxfoundation.org>
To: Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>
Cc: Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk@...nel.org>, 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 Mon, Mar 11, 2024 at 09:11:11AM -0700, Jakub Kicinski wrote:
> > 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?

There is no way to make it work reliably the way you propose, so I strongly
suggest that we do it the way b4 currently works:

- a series can start with RFC in the prefixes to indicate that it's not
  something to be considered for inclusion
- when the author feels that the series is ready for maintainers'
  consideration, they simply drop the RFC and keep the same change-id and
  versioning info; e.g. [PATCH RFC v3] -> [PATCH v4]

Resetting the versioning requires resetting the change-id of the series, or a
lot of automation breaks.

-K