netdev - Re: 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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <5624f840-0496-40bd-b6ec-8fb253565a84@intel.com>
Date: Wed, 20 Nov 2024 10:13:07 -0700
From: Dave Jiang <dave.jiang@...el.com>
To: Alejandro Lucero Palau <alucerop@....com>, 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>
Subject: Re: Should the CXL Type2 support patchset be split up?

On 11/20/24 9:50 AM, Alejandro Lucero Palau wrote:
> 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).

Given that the series is dominantly CXL patches, my suggestion would be get the acks from netdev side and CXL can take the whole series without doing any splitting. That's been typically how it has been done with cross subsystem changes. i.e. ACPI+CXL etc. 

DJ 

> 
> 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
>>>