netdev - Should the CXL Type2 support patchset be split up?

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: <f14777c1-9a38-86e5-df39-c52b7df2f300@amd.com>
Date: Wed, 20 Nov 2024 16:50:31 +0000
From: Alejandro Lucero Palau <alucerop@....com>
To: Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com>, alejandro.lucero-palau@....com,
 linux-cxl@...r.kernel.org, netdev@...r.kernel.org, dan.j.williams@...el.com,
 martin.habets@...inx.com, edward.cree@....com, davem@...emloft.net,
 kuba@...nel.org, edumazet@...gle.com,
 Jonathan Cameron <Jonathan.Cameron@...wei.com>,
 Dave Jiang <dave.jiang@...el.com>
Subject: Should the CXL Type2 support patchset be split up?

Hi all,

Facing Paolo's question again trying to involve CXL and (more) netdev 
maintainers.

Next v6 could have two different patchsets, one for cxl, one for netdev. 
The current patchset has already cleanly isolated sfc netdev patches, so 
it is trivial.

The main question is if CXL maintainers will be happy with this change 
as the sfc is the client justifying the CXL core changes. Also, the 
split could be delayed until all the patches get the Reviewed-by tag 
what is now only ~75% of them (sfc related patches without the public 
approval yet but internally obtained).

Thanks,

Alejandro

On 10/23/24 10:38, Alejandro Lucero Palau wrote:
>
> On 10/23/24 09:46, Paolo Abeni wrote:
>> I'm sorry for the late feedback, but which is the merge plan here?
>>
>> The series spawns across 2 different subsystems and could cause 
>> conflicts.
>>
>> Could the network device change be separated and send (to netdev) after
>> the clx ones land into Linus' tree?
>
>
> Hi Paolo,
>
>
> With v4 all sfc changes are different patches than those modifying CXL 
> core, so I guess this is good for what you suggest.
>
>
> Not sure the implications for merging only some patches into the CXL 
> tree.
>
>
> Thanks,
>
> Alejandro
>
>
>> Thanks,
>>
>> Paolo
>>