netdev - Re: [PATCH RFC net-next 0/5] Marvell PTP support

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: <Z_-68PMRo3rGT-9V@shell.armlinux.org.uk>
Date: Wed, 16 Apr 2025 15:13:04 +0100
From: "Russell King (Oracle)" <linux@...linux.org.uk>
To: Kory Maincent <kory.maincent@...tlin.com>
Cc: Andrew Lunn <andrew@...n.ch>, Heiner Kallweit <hkallweit1@...il.com>,
	Andrew Lunn <andrew+netdev@...n.ch>,
	"David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
	Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>,
	Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>,
	Marcin Wojtas <marcin.s.wojtas@...il.com>, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
	Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com>,
	Richard Cochran <richardcochran@...il.com>,
	Vladimir Oltean <olteanv@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC net-next 0/5] Marvell PTP support

On Wed, Apr 16, 2025 at 03:19:49PM +0200, Kory Maincent wrote:
> Maybe using kdoc in marvell_ts.c. You can copy paste the ones I wrote on
> the v2 of your driver I posted.

My position on kdoc is that it's worth kdocing interface functions, but
should never be used for internal functions. How many developers build
the kernel docs to read documentation divorced from their static
functions? Probably zero.

> Also don't forget to run checkpatch, patchwork reported errors on your series.
> It was not an issue as it was a RFC but it will if you remove it.

I'll fix *some* of them that make sense to fix, but not all of them.
Those I won't be fixing are:

CHECK: Please use a blank line after function/struct/union/enum
declarations
#465: FILE: drivers/net/phy/marvell_ptp.h:14:
+}
+#define marvell_phy_ptp_probe(x...) marvell_phy_ptp_dummy_probe()

No, it makes sense to keep these together.

Also:

ERROR: Missing Signed-off-by: line(s)

on the last two patches - I refer anyone back to the cover message
where I stated about their current state. In any case, in this form
they will be rejected even if they had a commit description and sob.
They at the very least need squashing together once stuff has settled
and I gave reasons why that hasn't happened yet.

Given that I can't test that anymore, nothing's going to change on
those last two patches, which means they will remain unsubmittable
for some time to come.

-- 
RMK's Patch system: https://www.armlinux.org.uk/developer/patches/
FTTP is here! 80Mbps down 10Mbps up. Decent connectivity at last!