Messages in this thread | | | Date | Wed, 27 Mar 2024 15:59:33 +0000 | From | "Russell King (Oracle)" <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH net v2 2/2] net: dsa: mt7530: fix disabling EEE on failure on MT7531 and MT7988 |
| |
On Wed, Mar 27, 2024 at 03:58:13PM +0000, Russell King (Oracle) wrote: > On Wed, Mar 27, 2024 at 11:46:19AM +0300, arinc.unal@arinc9.com wrote: > > On 26.03.2024 12:19, Arınç ÜNAL wrote: > > > On 26.03.2024 12:02, Paolo Abeni wrote: > > > > If I read the past discussion correctly, this is a potential issue > > > > found by code inspection and never producing problem in practice, am I > > > > correct? > > > > > > > > If so I think it will deserve a 3rd party tested-by tag or similar to > > > > go in. > > > > > > > > If nobody could provide such feedback in a little time, I suggest to > > > > drop this patch and apply only 1/2. > > > > > > Whether a problem would happen in practice depends on when > > > phy_init_eee() > > > fails, meaning it returns a negative non-zero code. I requested Russell > > > to > > > review this patch to shed light on when phy_init_eee() would return a > > > negative non-zero code so we have an idea whether this patch actually > > > fixes > > > a problem. > > > > I don't suppose Russell is going to review the patch at this point. I will > > submit this to net-next then. If someone actually reports a problem in > > practice, I can always submit it to the stable trees. > > So the fact that I only saw your request this morning to look at > phy_init_eee(), and to review this patch... because... I work for > Oracle, and I've been looking at backporting Arm64 KVM patches to > our kernel, been testing and debugging that effort... and the > act that less than 24 hours had passed since you made the original > request... yea, sorry, it's clearly my fault for not jumping on this > the moment you sent the email. > > I get _so_ much email that incorrectly has me in the To: header. I > also get _so_ much email that fails to list me in the To: header > when the author wants me to respond. I don't have time to read every > email as it comes in. I certainly don't have time to read every > email in any case. I do the best I can, which varies considerably > with my workload. > > I already find that being single, fitting everything in during the > day (paid work, chores, feeding oneself) is quite a mammoth task. > There is no one else to do the laundry. There is no one else to get > the shopping. There is no one else to do the washing up. There is no > one else to take the rubbish out. All this I do myself, and serially > because there is only one of me, and it all takes time away from > sitting here reading every damn email as it comes in. > > And then when I end up doing something that _you_ very well could do > (reading the phy_init_eee() code to find out when it might return a > negative number) and then you send an email like this... yea... that > really gets my goat.
.. and now I have a 1:1 with my manager for the next 30-60 minutes. Is it okay by you for me to be offline for that period of time while I have a chat with him?
-- RMK's Patch system: https://www.armlinux.org.uk/developer/patches/ FTTP is here! 80Mbps down 10Mbps up. Decent connectivity at last!
| |