Received-SPF: softfail (google.com: domain of transitioning linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org does not designate 23.128.96.19 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.19;
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <20220517194015.1081632-1-martin.blumenstingl@googlemail.com>
 <20220517194015.1081632-2-martin.blumenstingl@googlemail.com> <20220518114555.piutpdmdzvst2cvu@skbuf>
In-Reply-To: <20220518114555.piutpdmdzvst2cvu@skbuf>
From:   Martin Blumenstingl <martin.blumenstingl@googlemail.com>
Date:   Wed, 18 May 2022 19:58:58 +0200
Message-ID: <CAFBinCBZ6dDAgC+ZUAPOwTx5=yVfYBYvODs=v+DQzGzeEOeiDw@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net v1 1/2] net: dsa: lantiq_gswip: Fix start index in gswip_port_fdb()
To:     Vladimir Oltean <olteanv@gmail.com>
Cc:     netdev@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        andrew@lunn.ch, vivien.didelot@gmail.com, f.fainelli@gmail.com,
        davem@davemloft.net, edumazet@google.com, kuba@kernel.org,
        pabeni@redhat.com, Hauke Mehrtens <hauke@hauke-m.de>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Precedence: bulk

Hi Vladimir,

On Wed, May 18, 2022 at 1:45 PM Vladimir Oltean <olteanv@gmail.com> wrote:
[...]
> The patch, as well as other improvements you might want to bring to the gswip driver
> (we have more streamlined support in DSA now for FDB isolation, see ds->fdb_isolation)
> is appreciated.
Thank you very much for this hint! I was not aware of the
ds->fdb_isolation flag and additionally I have some other questions
regarding FDB - I'll send these in a separate email though.
Also thank you for being quick to review my patches and on top of that
providing extra hints!

> But I don't think that a code cleanup patch that makes no functional
> difference, and isn't otherwise needed by other backported patches,
> should be sent to the "net" tree, and be backported to "stable" later?
Sure, I will actually re-send the whole series based on net-next.
When I initially wrote this patch I thought that it would fix a more
severe issue. Only later on I found that the bug is harmless (as
mentioned in the patch description). When I then finally sent the
patch I just stuck with my original plan to send it for the net.git
tree - instead of re-thinking whether that's still needed after my
latest findings.


Best regards,
Martin