| Message ID | 1557177887-30446-1-git-send-email-ynezz@true.cz |
|---|---|
| Headers | show |
| Series | of_get_mac_address ERR_PTR fixes | expand |
On Mon, May 06, 2019 at 11:24:43PM +0200, Petr Štetiar wrote: > Hi, > > this patch series is an attempt to fix the mess, I've somehow managed to > introduce. > > First patch in this series is defacto v5 of the previous 05/10 patch in the > series, but since the v4 of this 05/10 patch wasn't picked up by the > patchwork for some unknown reason, this patch wasn't applied with the other > 9 patches in the series, so I'm resending it as a separate patch of this > fixup series again. I feel sort of ridiculous asking this over and over... Maybe your spam filter is eating my emails? This bug was introduced in https://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/1094916/ "[v4,01/10] of_net: add NVMEM support to of_get_mac_address" but it looks like no one applied it. You're acting as if it *was* applied but you refuse to answer my question who applied it and which to which tree so I can figure out what went wrong. I only see comments from last Friday that it shouldn't be applied... I also told you on Friday in a different thread that that patch shouldn't be applied. Breaking git bisect is a bug, and we never do that. I'm just very confused right now... What I'm trying to do is figure out in my head how this process failed so we can do better next time. regards, dan carpenter
On Tue, May 07, 2019 at 10:19:14AM +0300, Dan Carpenter wrote: > On Mon, May 06, 2019 at 11:24:43PM +0200, Petr Štetiar wrote: > > Hi, > > > > this patch series is an attempt to fix the mess, I've somehow managed to > > introduce. > > > > First patch in this series is defacto v5 of the previous 05/10 patch in the > > series, but since the v4 of this 05/10 patch wasn't picked up by the > > patchwork for some unknown reason, this patch wasn't applied with the other > > 9 patches in the series, so I'm resending it as a separate patch of this > > fixup series again. > > I feel sort of ridiculous asking this over and over... Maybe your spam > filter is eating my emails? > > This bug was introduced in https://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/1094916/ > "[v4,01/10] of_net: add NVMEM support to of_get_mac_address" but it > looks like no one applied it. > > You're acting as if it *was* applied but you refuse to answer my > question who applied it and which to which tree so I can figure out what > went wrong. > > I only see comments from last Friday that it shouldn't be applied... I > also told you on Friday in a different thread that that patch shouldn't > be applied. Breaking git bisect is a bug, and we never do that. I'm > just very confused right now... What I'm trying to do is figure out in > my head how this process failed so we can do better next time. Just to resend this, so that it hopefully does _not_ get stuck in a spam filter. Petr, please address Dan's comments, do not ignore them. greg k-h
Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@oracle.com> [2019-05-07 10:19:14]: Hi, > On Mon, May 06, 2019 at 11:24:43PM +0200, Petr Štetiar wrote: > > > > this patch series is an attempt to fix the mess, I've somehow managed to > > introduce. > > > > First patch in this series is defacto v5 of the previous 05/10 patch in the > > series, but since the v4 of this 05/10 patch wasn't picked up by the > > patchwork for some unknown reason, this patch wasn't applied with the other > > 9 patches in the series, so I'm resending it as a separate patch of this > > fixup series again. > > I feel sort of ridiculous asking this over and over... Maybe your spam > filter is eating my emails? nope, I've read your email, that's the only reason I've sent out this v2 which added Fixes: tag you've suggested in your email. > This bug was introduced in https://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/1094916/ > "[v4,01/10] of_net: add NVMEM support to of_get_mac_address" but it > looks like no one applied it. this patch series is against net-next, and I've added Fixes: tag as you've requested in this v2 series[1] (which expands to commit[2] in net-next): Fixes: d01f449c008a ("of_net: add NVMEM support to of_get_mac_address") > You're acting as if it *was* applied but you refuse to answer my > question who applied it and which to which tree so I can figure out what > went wrong. it was applied[2] to David's net-next tree, but unfortunately partialy, just 9 patches out of 10, as the patch 05/10 in that series (which is patch 1/4 in this series) never reached netdev mailing list and patchwork, probably because of some netdev mailing list software and/or patchwork hiccup, very likely due to the long list of recipients in that patch and as I'm not subscribed to the netdev (due to the high traffic) I'm probably treaten somehow differently. So to sum it up, I've simply thought, that it was enough to send out v2 with that Fixes: tag and considered it done. > I only see comments from last Friday that it shouldn't be applied... I'm sorry, but which comments do you mean exactly? Those about the `nvmem-mac-address` DT (sysfs) entry? If that is the case, from my point of view, I've provided reasonable arguments and nobody told me, that I'm wrong with my reasoning or NACKed this explicitly, so David probably considered my arguments good enough and merged it as it is? I don't have any other explanation. > I also told you on Friday in a different thread that that patch shouldn't be > applied. Breaking git bisect is a bug, and we never do that. Yes, and I agree with you, but I've simply thought, that if any of the maintainers who previously reviewed the series didn't objected about this, that they're possibly going to squash those patches by themselves during the merging process or that they're going to tell me to do so and I would address this in the latest interation of the patchset before merge. Anyway, is there any possibility how to fix that now? > I'm just very confused right now. What I'm trying to do is figure out in > my head how this process failed so we can do better next time. I'm just occasional contributor, so I'm sorry, but I can hardly provide any input. 1. https://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/1096054/ 2. https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/davem/net-next.git/commit/?id=d01f449c008a3f41fa44c603e28a7452ab8f8e68 Cheers, Petr
Petr Štetiar <ynezz@true.cz> [2019-05-07 10:39:18]: [adding Jeremy to the Cc: loop] > it was applied[2] to David's net-next tree, but unfortunately partialy, just 9 > patches out of 10, as the patch 05/10 in that series (which is patch 1/4 in > this series) never reached netdev mailing list and patchwork, probably because > of some netdev mailing list software and/or patchwork hiccup, very likely due > to the long list of recipients in that patch and as I'm not subscribed to the > netdev (due to the high traffic) I'm probably treaten somehow differently. For the record, I've following in my ~/.gitconfig: [sendemail.linux] tocmd ="`pwd`/scripts/get_maintainer.pl --nogit --nogit-fallback --norolestats --nol" cccmd ="`pwd`/scripts/get_maintainer.pl --nogit --nogit-fallback --norolestats --nom" and I've sent the patches with the following command: git send-email \ --to netdev@vger.kernel.org \ --to 'David S. Miller <davem@davemloft.net>' \ --cc 'Andrew Lunn <andrew@lunn.ch>' \ --cc 'Florian Fainelli <f.fainelli@gmail.com>' \ --cc 'Heiner Kallweit <hkallweit1@gmail.com>' \ --cc 'Frank Rowand <frowand.list@gmail.com>' \ --cc 'devel@driverdev.osuosl.org' \ --cc 'linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org' \ --cc 'Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>' \ --cc 'Maxime Ripard <maxime.ripard@bootlin.com>' \ --identity linux tmp/nvmem-fix-v2/000* which resulted just in the following 4 bounces: * nbd@openwrt.org (no such recipient) * ks.giri@samsung.com (no such recipient) * vipul.pandya@samsung.com (no such recipient) Your mail to 'linux-arm-kernel' with the subject [PATCH net-next v2 1/4] net: ethernet: support of_get_mac_address new ERR_PTR error Is being held until the list moderator can review it for approval. The reason it is being held: Too many recipients to the message So maybe netdev have similar moderation stuff enabled, but doesn't send out this notices back? I've "fixed" the issue with the following workaround: git send-email \ --to netdev@vger.kernel.org \ --in-reply-to '<1557177887-30446-1-git-send-email-ynezz@true.cz>' \ tmp/nvmem-fix-v2/0001-net-ethernet-support-of_get_mac_address-new-ERR_PTR-.patch That is, just using netdev as the sole recipient and then the patch has appeared in the patchwork and in the mailing list archive as well. -- ynezz
Hi Petr, On Mon, May 6, 2019 at 11:25 PM Petr Štetiar <ynezz@true.cz> wrote: > this patch series is an attempt to fix the mess, I've somehow managed to > introduce. > > First patch in this series is defacto v5 of the previous 05/10 patch in the > series, but since the v4 of this 05/10 patch wasn't picked up by the > patchwork for some unknown reason, this patch wasn't applied with the other > 9 patches in the series, so I'm resending it as a separate patch of this > fixup series again. > > Second patch is a result of this rebase against net-next tree, where I was > checking again all current users of of_get_mac_address and found out, that > there's new one in DSA, so I've converted this user to the new ERR_PTR > encoded error value as well. > > Third patch which was sent as v5 wasn't considered for merge, but I still > think, that we need to check for possible NULL value, thus current IS_ERR > check isn't sufficient and we need to use IS_ERR_OR_NULL instead. > > Fourth patch fixes warning reported by kbuild test robot. > > Cheers, > > Petr > > Petr Štetiar (4): > net: ethernet: support of_get_mac_address new ERR_PTR error I didn't receive the patch through email, but patchwork does have it: https://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/1096054/ This fixes the crash ("Unable to handle kernel paging request atvirtual address fffffffe") I'm seeing with sh_eth on r8a7791/koelsch, so Tested-by: Geert Uytterhoeven <geert+renesas@glider.be> Gr{oetje,eeting}s, Geert
Oh crap. You did add a Fixes tag. My bad. I should have been more clear/pro-active on Friday and we could have avoided this... Next time. regards, dan carpenter
On 07.05.2019 00:25, Petr Štetiar wrote: > Hi, > > this patch series is an attempt to fix the mess, I've somehow managed to > introduce. > > First patch in this series is defacto v5 of the previous 05/10 patch in the > series, but since the v4 of this 05/10 patch wasn't picked up by the > patchwork for some unknown reason, this patch wasn't applied with the other > 9 patches in the series, so I'm resending it as a separate patch of this > fixup series again. > > Second patch is a result of this rebase against net-next tree, where I was > checking again all current users of of_get_mac_address and found out, that > there's new one in DSA, so I've converted this user to the new ERR_PTR > encoded error value as well. > > Third patch which was sent as v5 wasn't considered for merge, but I still > think, that we need to check for possible NULL value, thus current IS_ERR > check isn't sufficient and we need to use IS_ERR_OR_NULL instead. > > Fourth patch fixes warning reported by kbuild test robot. > > Cheers, > > Petr > > Petr Štetiar (4): > net: ethernet: support of_get_mac_address new ERR_PTR error > net: dsa: support of_get_mac_address new ERR_PTR error > staging: octeon-ethernet: Fix of_get_mac_address ERR_PTR check > net: usb: smsc: fix warning reported by kbuild test robot > drivers/net/ethernet/freescale/fec_main.c | 2 +- This fixes netboot on imx (probably all of them). Tested-by: Leonard Crestez <leonard.crestez@nxp.com> But shouldn't "support of_get_mac_address new ERR_PTR error" somehow be reordered so that it's done before allowing non-null errors from of_get_mac_address? Otherwise it will break bisect for many people. -- Regards, Leonard
From: Petr Štetiar <ynezz@true.cz> Date: Mon, 6 May 2019 23:24:43 +0200 > this patch series is an attempt to fix the mess, I've somehow managed to > introduce. > > First patch in this series is defacto v5 of the previous 05/10 patch in the > series, but since the v4 of this 05/10 patch wasn't picked up by the > patchwork for some unknown reason, this patch wasn't applied with the other > 9 patches in the series, so I'm resending it as a separate patch of this > fixup series again. > > Second patch is a result of this rebase against net-next tree, where I was > checking again all current users of of_get_mac_address and found out, that > there's new one in DSA, so I've converted this user to the new ERR_PTR > encoded error value as well. > > Third patch which was sent as v5 wasn't considered for merge, but I still > think, that we need to check for possible NULL value, thus current IS_ERR > check isn't sufficient and we need to use IS_ERR_OR_NULL instead. > > Fourth patch fixes warning reported by kbuild test robot. Series applied, thanks.