netdev - Re: [PATCH net-next v1 1/3] net: stmmac: Switch to zero-copy in non-XDP RX path

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: <12e126f8-f966-43e3-9fd3-f9105461d7b2@intel.com>
Date: Tue, 14 Jan 2025 18:23:41 +0100
From: Alexander Lobakin <aleksander.lobakin@...el.com>
To: Andrew Lunn <andrew@...n.ch>
CC: Yanteng Si <si.yanteng@...ux.dev>, Furong Xu <0x1207@...il.com>,
	<netdev@...r.kernel.org>, <linux-stm32@...md-mailman.stormreply.com>,
	<linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>, <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Andrew Lunn <andrew+netdev@...n.ch>, "David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
	Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>, Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>, "Paolo
 Abeni" <pabeni@...hat.com>, Maxime Coquelin <mcoquelin.stm32@...il.com>,
	<xfr@...look.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next v1 1/3] net: stmmac: Switch to zero-copy in
 non-XDP RX path

From: Andrew Lunn <andrew@...n.ch>
Date: Mon, 13 Jan 2025 17:48:22 +0100

>> 1. It's author's responsibility to read netdev CI output on Patchwork,
>>    reviewers shouldn't copy its logs.
> 
> I somewhat disagree with that. We want the author to of already run
> all the static analysers before they post code. We don't want the
> mailing list abused as a CI system.

Sure. Maybe I wasn't clear enough, but I don't encourage using our
MLs/CIs to test stuff :D What I meant is that reviewers shouldn't copy
stuff from the Patchwork output. The authors themselves should track
their series there, but only to make sure everything is fine, not to
"let's see if I need to fix anything else".

> 
> So rather than pointing out a specific problem, it can be better to
> say that static analysers XZY is not happy with this patch, please run
> it and fix the issues it reports.

Right, probably the best way.

> 
> 	Andrew

Thanks,
Olek