netdev - Re: [PATCH net-next 0/5] net/mlx5e: Add support for PCIe congestion events

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: <aFRiuIPidlx7Qsy9@x130>
Date: Thu, 19 Jun 2025 12:19:20 -0700
From: Saeed Mahameed <saeed@...nel.org>
To: Mark Bloch <mbloch@...dia.com>
Cc: Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>,
	"David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
	Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com>, Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>,
	Andrew Lunn <andrew+netdev@...n.ch>,
	Simon Horman <horms@...nel.org>, saeedm@...dia.com, gal@...dia.com,
	leonro@...dia.com, tariqt@...dia.com,
	Leon Romanovsky <leon@...nel.org>, Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>,
	netdev@...r.kernel.org, linux-rdma@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-doc@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next 0/5] net/mlx5e: Add support for PCIe congestion
 events

On 19 Jun 19:00, Mark Bloch wrote:
>
>
>On 19/06/2025 17:55, Jakub Kicinski wrote:
>> On Thu, 19 Jun 2025 14:37:16 +0300 Mark Bloch wrote:
>>> PCIe congestion events are events generated by the firmware when the
>>> device side has sustained PCIe inbound or outbound traffic above
>>> certain thresholds. The high and low threshold are hysteresis thresholds
>>> to prevent flapping: once the high threshold has been reached, a low
>>> threshold event will be triggered only after the bandwidth usage went
>>> below the low threshold.
>>
>> What are we supposed to do with a series half of which is tagged for
>> one tree and half for another? If you want for some of the patches to
>> go via the shared tree - you have to post them separately.
>> Ideally you'd post them to the list in a combined "pull request +
>> patches" format (see for example how Marc posts CAN patches, or Pablo
>> posts netfilter). Once we pull that you can sent the net-next stuff
>> separately as patches.
>
>Miscommunication about the proper process, thanks for the explanation.
>PR + patches seems cleaner and provides more context,
>so I’ll go with that.
>
>>
>> I feel like I just had the same exact conversation with Tariq recently.
>> Really not great when same process explainer has to be given to
>> multiple people from the same company :( I'd like to remind y'all that
>> reading the mailing list is not optional:
>
>I do follow the mailing list and double checked what should be done in
>this scenario. In the end it's my responsibility so it's my fault.
>

I think what Mark did here is fine, Yes I understand this is not
applicable to net-next yet, but the point is review and we can do the
following, when review is done:

I can Apply the mlx5-next portion to mlx5-next and Mark on V2 can send the
net-next stuff + A PR request to the mlx5-next branch, this is how we used
to do it all the time, but this time review happens all at once for both
trees.

Jakub is this acceptable ?