[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20250411185238.77372b15@kernel.org>
Date: Fri, 11 Apr 2025 18:52:38 -0700
From: Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>
To: Maxime Chevallier <maxime.chevallier@...tlin.com>
Cc: davem@...emloft.net, Andrew Lunn <andrew@...n.ch>, Eric Dumazet
<edumazet@...gle.com>, Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com>, Heiner Kallweit
<hkallweit1@...il.com>, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, thomas.petazzoni@...tlin.com,
linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, Christophe Leroy
<christophe.leroy@...roup.eu>, Herve Codina <herve.codina@...tlin.com>,
Florian Fainelli <f.fainelli@...il.com>, Russell King
<linux@...linux.org.uk>, Vladimir Oltean <vladimir.oltean@....com>,
Köry Maincent <kory.maincent@...tlin.com>, Oleksij Rempel
<o.rempel@...gutronix.de>, Simon Horman <horms@...nel.org>, Romain Gantois
<romain.gantois@...tlin.com>, Piergiorgio Beruto
<piergiorgio.beruto@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next v5 1/4] net: ethtool: Introduce per-PHY DUMP
operations
On Fri, 11 Apr 2025 09:26:19 +0200 Maxime Chevallier wrote:
> > Transient warnings here that the new functions are not used :(
> > Would it work to squash the 3rd and 4th patches in?
> > Not ideal but better than having a warning.
>
> ah damn yes indeed... meh sorry about that, I'll squash the other
> patches in (except for the net/ethtool/phy.c patch). That said are you
> more comfortable with this approach ? I was unsure this was what you
> were expecting from the previous iteration.
I'm not sure if I did expect anything in particular after the idea I had
proved to not be feasible :) This looks good at a quick look.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists