Messages in this thread | | | Date | Thu, 23 Feb 2023 13:55:40 +0100 | From | Simon Horman <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH net V3] net: stmmac: Premature loop termination check was ignored |
| |
On Thu, Feb 23, 2023 at 12:34:18PM +0100, Jochen Henneberg wrote: > > Andrew Lunn <andrew@lunn.ch> writes: > > > On Wed, Feb 22, 2023 at 04:49:55PM +0100, Henneberg - Systemdesign wrote: > >> > >> Simon Horman <simon.horman@corigine.com> writes: > >> > >> > On Wed, Feb 22, 2023 at 08:38:28AM +0100, Jochen Henneberg wrote: > >> >> > >> >> The premature loop termination check makes sense only in case of the > >> >> jump to read_again where the count may have been updated. But > >> >> read_again did not include the check. > >> >> > >> >> Fixes: bba2556efad6 ("net: stmmac: Enable RX via AF_XDP zero-copy") > >> > > >> > This commit was included in v5.13 > >> > > >> >> Fixes: ec222003bd94 ("net: stmmac: Prepare to add Split Header support") > >> > > >> > While this one was included in v5.4 > >> > > >> > It seems to me that each of the above commits correspond to one > >> > of the two hunks below. I don't know if that means this > >> > patch should be split in two to assist backporting. > >> > > >> > >> I was thinking about this already but the change was so trivial that I > >> hesitated to split it into two commits. I wanted I will surely change > >> this. > > > > The advantage of splitting is that it makes back porting easy. Both > > parts are needed for 6.1 and 5.15. 5.10 only needs the fix for > > ec222003bd94. It if does not easily apply to 5.10 it could get > > dropped. By splitting it, the backporting probably happens fully > > automated, no human involved. > > Understood. Will do the split and send two new patches. I will not > continue with version upcounting and not send a patch series but two > completly independent patches.
There may be fuzz if the patches are not applied in order. I'd suggest making a series.
| |