netdev - Re: [PATCH net-next 1/4] mlx4/mlx5: {mlx4,mlx5e}_en_get_module

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <528f30ca-5434-4f75-9587-c253c934bfc1@ans.pl>
Date: Sat, 14 Sep 2024 19:21:28 -0700
From: Krzysztof Olędzki <ole@....pl>
To: Simon Horman <horms@...nel.org>, Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>
Cc: Ido Schimmel <idosch@...dia.com>, Tariq Toukan <tariqt@...dia.com>,
        "David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
        Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>, Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com>,
        Saeed Mahameed <saeedm@...dia.com>, Leon Romanovsky <leon@...nel.org>,
        Yishai Hadas <yishaih@...dia.com>,
        "netdev@...r.kernel.org" <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
        linux-rdma@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next 1/4] mlx4/mlx5: {mlx4,mlx5e}_en_get_module_info
 cleanup

On 14.09.2024 at 01:21, Simon Horman wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 13, 2024 at 07:48:08PM -0700, Jakub Kicinski wrote:
>> On Fri, 13 Sep 2024 19:12:01 -0700 Krzysztof Olędzki wrote:
>>> On 13.09.2024 at 13:55, Jakub Kicinski wrote:
>>>> On Wed, 11 Sep 2024 23:38:45 -0700 Krzysztof Olędzki wrote:  
>>>>> Use SFF8024 constants defined in linux/sfp.h instead of private ones.
>>>>>
>>>>> Make mlx4_en_get_module_info() and mlx5e_get_module_info() to look
>>>>> as close as possible to each other.
>>>>>
>>>>> Simplify the logic for selecting SFF_8436 vs SFF_8636.  
>>>>
>>>> Minor process suggestion, I think you may be sending the patches one by
>>>> one. It's best to format them into a new directory and send all at once
>>>> with git send-email. Add a cover letter, too.
>>>>   
>>>
>>> Thanks, yes, will do for v2. I assume this needs to wait for about
>>> two weeks for net-next to re-open?
>>
>> The cleanups - yes, but if patch 3 works you should make it independent
>> and send as a fix (and trees never close for fixes).
> 
> Hi Krzysztof,
> 
> Just to expand on what Jakub wrote a little. In general fixes should have a
> Fixes tag and be targeted at the net tree.
> 
> 	Subject: [PATCH net] ...
> 
> Link: https://docs.kernel.org/process/maintainer-netdev.html

Yes, thank you Simon for the additional feedback.

I initially targeted net-next following Ido's request:
 https://lore.kernel.org/netdev/Ztna8O1ZGUc4kvKJ@shredder.mtl.com/

If we all believe "net" is the right target, I'm more than happy to update it and re-send that single
patch now. Should I mark it as "v2" even if no difference because of the tree change?

Also, I did include Fixes in that patch:
 Fixes: f5826c8c9d57 ("net/mlx4_en: Fix wrong return value on ioctl EEPROM query failure")
 Fixes: 32a173c7f9e9 ("net/mlx4_core: Introduce mlx4_get_module_info for cable module info reading")

See: https://lore.kernel.org/netdev/2aa0787e-a148-456e-b1b5-8f1e9785ed04@ans.pl/

Thanks,
 Krzysztof