netdev - Re: [PATCH RFC net-next v4 00/14] net: stmmac: convert stmmac "pcs" to phylink

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: <ce42fknbcp2jxzzcx2fdjs72d3kgw2psbbasgz5zvwcvu26usi@4m4wpvo5sa77>
Date: Wed, 4 Sep 2024 16:26:11 -0500
From: Andrew Halaney <ahalaney@...hat.com>
To: Serge Semin <fancer.lancer@...il.com>
Cc: "Russell King (Oracle)" <linux@...linux.org.uk>, 
	Alexandre Torgue <alexandre.torgue@...s.st.com>, Alexei Starovoitov <ast@...nel.org>, bpf@...r.kernel.org, 
	Bartosz Golaszewski <bartosz.golaszewski@...aro.org>, Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net>, 
	"David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>, Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>, 
	Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>, Jesper Dangaard Brouer <hawk@...nel.org>, 
	John Fastabend <john.fastabend@...il.com>, Jose Abreu <joabreu@...opsys.com>, 
	linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, linux-arm-msm@...r.kernel.org, 
	linux-stm32@...md-mailman.stormreply.com, Maxime Coquelin <mcoquelin.stm32@...il.com>, 
	netdev@...r.kernel.org, Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com>, 
	Sneh Shah <quic_snehshah@...cinc.com>, Vinod Koul <vkoul@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC net-next v4 00/14] net: stmmac: convert stmmac "pcs"
 to phylink

On Thu, Aug 08, 2024 at 11:42:53PM GMT, Serge Semin wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 07, 2024 at 10:21:07AM +0100, Russell King (Oracle) wrote:
> > On Tue, Aug 06, 2024 at 09:56:04PM +0300, Serge Semin wrote:
> > > Hi Russell
> > > 

...

> 
> > I guessed that you would dig your heals in over this, and want to do
> > it your own way despite all the points I raised against your patch
> > series on my previous posting arguing against much of this.
> > 
> > So, at this point I give up with this patch series - clearly there is
> > no room for discussion about the way forward, and you want to do it
> > your way no matter what.
> 
> I actually thought that in general the approach implemented in my
> patches didn't meet much dislikes from your side. Just several notes
> which could be easily fixed in the next revisions.
> 
> Anyway thanks for understanding. I'll wait for your series to be
> merged in. Then I'll submit my patch set based on top of it (of course
> taking into account all the notes raised by you back then).
> 

Hmmm, I'll poke the bears :)

Any chance this series will be rebased and sent out again? I
really liked the direction of this and it seems a waste to end it at a
stalemate here despite some differing opinions on the design and
possible future changes.

I think we're all in agreement that stmmac's current PCS usage behind
phylink's back is not good, and this is a massive improvement.

Thanks,
Andrew