netdev - Re: [PATCH net 0/4] net: axienet: Fix deferred probe loop

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: <3ff0f1eb-fd69-4452-9e24-738f47b0203e@linux.dev>
Date: Fri, 20 Jun 2025 12:34:56 -0400
From: Sean Anderson <sean.anderson@...ux.dev>
To: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
Cc: Radhey Shyam Pandey <radhey.shyam.pandey@....com>,
 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>,
 netdev@...r.kernel.org, Michal Simek <michal.simek@....com>,
 Saravana Kannan <saravanak@...gle.com>, Leon Romanovsky <leon@...nel.org>,
 Dave Ertman <david.m.ertman@...el.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
 Ira Weiny <ira.weiny@...el.com>, linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
 Danilo Krummrich <dakr@...nel.org>, "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net 0/4] net: axienet: Fix deferred probe loop

On 6/20/25 12:01, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 20, 2025 at 11:41:52AM -0400, Sean Anderson wrote:
>> On 6/20/25 01:10, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
>> > On Thu, Jun 19, 2025 at 04:05:33PM -0400, Sean Anderson wrote:
>> >> Upon further investigation, the EPROBE_DEFER loop outlined in [1] can
>> >> occur even without the PCS subsystem, as described in patch 4/4. The
>> >> second patch is a general fix, and could be applied even without the
>> >> auxdev conversion.
>> >> 
>> >> [1] https://lore.kernel.org/all/20250610183459.3395328-1-sean.anderson@linux.dev/
>> > 
>> > I have no idea what this summary means at all, which isn't a good start
>> > to a patch series :(
>> > 
>> > What problem are you trying to solve?
>> 
>> See patch 4/4.
> 
> That's not what should be in patch 0/4 then, right?
> 
>> > What overall solution did you come up with?
>> 
>> See patch 4/4.
> 
> Again, why write a 0/4 summary at all then?

So if I decide in v2 that some patch other than "auxiliary: Allow empty
id" has to come first then the series still has the same subject. This
makes it easier for maintainers to figure out which v1 the v2 is for.

>> > Who is supposed to be reviewing any of this?
>> 
>> Netdev. Hence "PATCH net".
>> 
>> And see [1] above for background. I will quote it more-extensively next time.
> 
> Referring to random links doesn't always work as we deal with thousands
> of patches daily, and sometimes don't even have internet access (like
> when reviewing patches on long flights/train rides...)

Well, the link contains the message-id, so you are more than welcome to
look it up in your email client. But to spare you the trouble I will
quote from it next time in addition to linking.

--Sean