Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:20 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::1:20;
Date:   Wed, 30 Nov 2022 22:56:51 +0200
From:   Vladimir Oltean <olteanv@gmail.com>
To:     Jerry Ray <jerry.ray@microchip.com>
Cc:     Andrew Lunn <andrew@lunn.ch>,
        Florian Fainelli <f.fainelli@gmail.com>,
        "David S. Miller" <davem@davemloft.net>,
        Eric Dumazet <edumazet@google.com>,
        Jakub Kicinski <kuba@kernel.org>,
        Paolo Abeni <pabeni@redhat.com>, netdev@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next v4] dsa: lan9303: Add 3 ethtool stats
Message-ID: <20221130205651.4kgh7dpqp72ywbuq@skbuf>
References: <20221130200804.21778-1-jerry.ray@microchip.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20221130200804.21778-1-jerry.ray@microchip.com>
Precedence: bulk

Hi Jerry,

On Wed, Nov 30, 2022 at 02:08:04PM -0600, Jerry Ray wrote:
>  static void lan9303_get_ethtool_stats(struct dsa_switch *ds, int port,
>  				      uint64_t *data)
>  {
>  	struct lan9303 *chip = ds->priv;
>  	unsigned int u;
>  
>  	for (u = 0; u < ARRAY_SIZE(lan9303_mib); u++) {
>  		u32 reg;
>  		int ret;
>  
>  		ret = lan9303_read_switch_port(
>  			chip, port, lan9303_mib[u].offset, &reg);
>  
> -		if (ret)
> +		if (ret) {
>  			dev_warn(chip->dev, "Reading status port %d reg %u failed\n",
>  				 port, lan9303_mib[u].offset);
> +			reg = 0;
> +		}

This part of the change still is unrelated and affects existing code.
Bug fixes to existing code are submitted as separate patches. In some
kernel trees, they are at the very least tagged with a Fixes: tag and
put before other development work. In netdev, they are sent to a different
git tree (net.git) which eventually lands in a different set of branches
than net-next.git. You need to not mix bug fixes with development code.
Andrew also suggested that you separate each logical change into a
separate patch.

This, plus the fact that Jakub asked you to also provide standardized
counters, not just free-form ones, which you found it ok to disregard.

I hope that only a misunderstanding is involved, because if it isn't,
then Jakub will know you, alright, but as the person who disregards
review feedback and expects that it'll just disappear. I think Jakub
has pretty solid grounds to not expect that you'll come back with what
has been requested.

Sorry, this patch has a NACK from me at least until you come back with
some clarifications, and split the change.

>  		data[u] = reg;
>  	}