Messages in this thread | | | From | Vladimir Oltean <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH v4 net-next 5/5] net: mscc: ocelot: expose ocelot wm functions | Date | Tue, 7 Dec 2021 15:30:12 +0000 |
| |
On Tue, Dec 07, 2021 at 07:26:52AM -0800, Jakub Kicinski wrote: > On Tue, 7 Dec 2021 12:11:22 +0000 Vladimir Oltean wrote: > > On Tue, Dec 07, 2021 at 11:48:52AM +0000, Russell King (Oracle) wrote: > > > Thank you for highlighting this. > > > > > > Vladimir told me recently over the phylink get_interfaces vs get_caps > > > change for DSA, and I quote: > > > > > > David who applied your patch can correct me, but my understanding from > > > the little time I've spent on netdev is that dead code isn't a candidate > > > for getting accepted into the tree, even more so in the last few days > > > before the merge window, from where it got into v5.16-rc1. > > > ... > > > So yes, I take issue with that as a matter of principle, I very much > > > expect that a kernel developer of your experience does not set a > > > precedent and a pretext for people who submit various shady stuff to the > > > kernel just to make their downstream life easier. > > > > > > This sounds very much like double-standards, especially as Vladimir > > > reviewed this. > > > > > > I'm not going to be spiteful NAK these patches, because we all need to > > > get along with each other. I realise that it is sometimes useful to get > > > code merged that facilitates or aids further development - provided > > > that development is submitted in a timely manner. > > > > I'm not taking this as a spiteful comment either, it is a very fair point. > > Colin had previously submitted this as part of a 23-patch series and it > > was me who suggested that this change could go in as part of preparation > > work right away: > > https://patchwork.kernel.org/project/netdevbpf/cover/20211116062328.1949151-1-colin.foster@in-advantage.com/#24596529 > > I didn't realize that in doing so with this particular change, we would > > end up having some symbols exported by the ocelot switch lib that aren't > > yet in use by other drivers. So yes, this would have to go in at the > > same time as the driver submission itself. > > I don't know the dependencies here (there are also pinctrl patches > in the linked series) so I'll defer to you, if there is a reason to > merge the unused symbols it needs to be spelled out, otherwise let's > drop the last patch for now.
I don't think there's any problem with dropping the last patch for now, as that's the safer thing to do (Colin?), but just let us know whether you prefer Colin to resend a 4-patch series, or you can pick this series up without the last one.
| |