Messages in this thread | | | Date | Wed, 3 May 2023 17:34:12 +0200 | From | Simon Horman <> | Subject | Re: [EXT] Re: [PATCH v2 net 2/2] net: fec: restructuring the functions to avoid forward declarations |
| |
On Wed, May 03, 2023 at 12:53:57PM +0000, Shenwei Wang wrote: > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Andrew Lunn <andrew@lunn.ch> > > Sent: Tuesday, May 2, 2023 6:19 PM > > To: Shenwei Wang <shenwei.wang@nxp.com> > > Cc: Wei Fang <wei.fang@nxp.com>; David S. Miller <davem@davemloft.net>; > > Eric Dumazet <edumazet@google.com>; Jakub Kicinski <kuba@kernel.org>; > > Paolo Abeni <pabeni@redhat.com>; Clark Wang <xiaoning.wang@nxp.com>; dl- > > linux-imx <linux-imx@nxp.com>; Alexei Starovoitov <ast@kernel.org>; Daniel > > Borkmann <daniel@iogearbox.net>; Jesper Dangaard Brouer > > <hawk@kernel.org>; John Fastabend <john.fastabend@gmail.com>; Alexander > > Lobakin <alexandr.lobakin@intel.com>; netdev@vger.kernel.org; linux- > > kernel@vger.kernel.org; imx@lists.linux.dev > > Subject: [EXT] Re: [PATCH v2 net 2/2] net: fec: restructuring the functions to > > avoid forward declarations > > > > Caution: This is an external email. Please take care when clicking links or > > opening attachments. When in doubt, report the message using the 'Report this > > email' button > > > > > > On Tue, May 02, 2023 at 05:08:18PM -0500, Shenwei Wang wrote: > > > The patch reorganizes functions related to XDP frame transmission, > > > moving them above the fec_enet_run_xdp implementation. This eliminates > > > the need for forward declarations of these functions. > > > > I'm confused. Are these two patches in the wrong order? > > > > The reason that i asked you to fix the forward declaration in net-next is that it > > makes your fix two patches. Sometimes that is not obvious to people back > > porting patches, and one gets lost, causing build problems. So it is better to have > > a single patch which is maybe not 100% best practice merged to stable, and then > > a cleanup patch merged to the head of development. > > > > If that is the case, we should forgo the second patch. Its purpose was to > reorganize function order such that the subsequent patch to net-next > enabling XDP_TX would not encounter forward declaration issues.
I think a good plan would be, as I understood Andrew's original suggestion, to:
1. Only have patch 2/2, targeted at 'net', for now 2. Later, once that patch has been accepted into 'net', 'net-next' has reopened, and that patch is present in 'net-next', then follow-up with patch 1/2, which is a cleanup.
| |