Messages in this thread | | | From | Shenwei Wang <> | Subject | RE: [EXT] Re: [PATCH v2 net 2/2] net: fec: restructuring the functions to avoid forward declarations | Date | Wed, 3 May 2023 19:20:15 +0000 |
| |
> -----Original Message----- > From: Simon Horman <horms@kernel.org> > Sent: Wednesday, May 3, 2023 2:07 PM > To: Shenwei Wang <shenwei.wang@nxp.com> > Cc: Andrew Lunn <andrew@lunn.ch>; 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: Re: [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 Wed, May 03, 2023 at 06:41:59PM +0000, Shenwei Wang wrote: > > ... > > > > > > 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. > > > > So should I re-submit the patch? Or you just take the 1st patch and > > drop the 2nd one? > > net and net-next work on a granularity of patch-sets. > So I would suggest re-submitting only patch 2/2 for 'net'. >
Hi Simon,
I'm a bit confused.
Are you suggesting that I submit the following restructuring patch for 'net' at this time? [PATCH v2 net 2/2] net: fec: restructuring the functions to avoid forward declarations
Thanks, Shenwei
> I would also suggest waiting 24h between posting v2 and v3, as per > https://kernel.or/ > g%2Fdoc%2Fhtml%2Fnext%2Fprocess%2Fmaintainer- > netdev.html&data=05%7C01%7Cshenwei.wang%40nxp.com%7Ca451f7a0cf674 > 0b0561d08db4c09a558%7C686ea1d3bc2b4c6fa92cd99c5c301635%7C0%7C0%7 > C638187376528990151%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwM > DAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C > &sdata=wBrPt7eKO2Y8ve%2B%2BG8STtZZVS9YdQR11YUL6wcwJ29M%3D&rese > rved=0 >
| |