netdev - Re: [PATCH net-next v2 06/22] net: stmmac: rk: add SoC specific ->init() method

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: <20260126171606.6153aa1a@kernel.org>
Date: Mon, 26 Jan 2026 17:16:06 -0800
From: Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>
To: "Russell King (Oracle)" <linux@...linux.org.uk>
Cc: Andrew Lunn <andrew@...n.ch>, Alexandre Torgue
 <alexandre.torgue@...s.st.com>, Andrew Lunn <andrew+netdev@...n.ch>, "David
 S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>, Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>, Heiko
 Stuebner <heiko@...ech.de>, linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
 linux-rockchip@...ts.infradead.org,
 linux-stm32@...md-mailman.stormreply.com, netdev@...r.kernel.org, Paolo
 Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next v2 06/22] net: stmmac: rk: add SoC specific
 ->init() method

On Tue, 27 Jan 2026 00:59:05 +0000 Russell King (Oracle) wrote:
> > > and there's no way to find out for about 9 hours (more like 19 hours
> > > for me because of the timezone) as the AI reviews are not accessible
> > > until then.  
> > 
> > The patchwork checks are for maintainers. If someone wants to build
> > a public CI for contributors that'd be great. We can even provide
> > funds from the netdev foundation. But let us be clear that the current
> > setup is until now maintained primarily by me for me on the weekends.
> > Unless you make an effort to actually help I don't think it is in good
> > taste to complain.  
> 
> This sounds like my contributions to netdev aren't valued, and if that's
> the case, I will stop.

Quite the opposite, what I'm saying is that your complaints make me
feel like the weekends spent on trying to make this project come out 
of stone age testing-wise are not appreciated. Of course your
contributions are appreciated.

The AI code reviews on existing buggy code are indeed very painful.
Not sure what we can do here to make the contributing easier.
It costs us around $2 now to review a single patch so we can't afford
public access. I think Google is working on making Gemini code reviews
public and free, hopefully that materializes.