netdev - Re: [PATCH net-next] net: ethernet: Switch back to struct platform

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: <20240924072937.GE4029621@kernel.org>
Date: Tue, 24 Sep 2024 08:29:37 +0100
From: Simon Horman <horms@...nel.org>
To: Uwe Kleine-König <u.kleine-koenig@...libre.com>
Cc: "David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
	Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>,
	Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>, Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com>,
	netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next] net: ethernet: Switch back to struct
 platform_driver::remove()

On Mon, Sep 23, 2024 at 06:22:01PM +0200, Uwe Kleine-König wrote:
> After commit 0edb555a65d1 ("platform: Make platform_driver::remove()
> return void") .remove() is (again) the right callback to implement for
> platform drivers.
> 
> Convert ethernet clk drivers to use .remove(), with the eventual goal to drop
> struct platform_driver::remove_new(). As .remove() and .remove_new() have
> the same prototypes, conversion is done by just changing the structure
> member name in the driver initializer.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Uwe Kleine-König <u.kleine-koenig@...libre.com>
> ---
> Hello,
> 
> I converted all drivers below drivers/net/ethernet in a single patch. If
> you want it split, just tell me (per vendor? per driver?). Also note I
> didn't add all the maintainers of the individual drivers to Cc: to not
> trigger sending restrictions and spam filters.

Hi Uwe,

My 2c worth on this:

I think that given that the changes to each file are very simple,
and the number of files changed, a single, or small number of patches
make sense. Because the overhead of managing per-driver patches,
which I would ordinarily prefer, seems too large.

However, touching so many files does lead to a substantial risk of
conflicts. And indeed, the patch does not currently apply cleanly
to net-next (although it can trivially be made to do so). Perhaps
the maintainers can handle that, but I would suggest reposting in
a form that does apply cleanly so that automations can run.

Which brings me to to a separate, process issue: net-next is currently
closed for the v6.12 merge window. It should reopen once v6.12-rc1 has
been released. And patches for net-next should be posted after it
has reopened, with the caveat that RFC patches may be posted any time.

...

-- 
pw-bot: defer