Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.33 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.33;
Feedback-ID: i68a1478a:Fastmail
Date:   Sun, 10 Dec 2023 20:50:56 -0600
From:   Patrick Williams <patrick@stwcx.xyz>
To:     Ivan Mikhaylov <fr0st61te@gmail.com>
Cc:     davem@davemloft.net, edumazet@google.com, kuba@kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, netdev@vger.kernel.org,
        pabeni@redhat.com, peter@pjd.dev, sam@mendozajonas.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next v2 3/3] net/ncsi: Add NC-SI 1.2 Get MC MAC
 Address command
Message-ID: <ZXZ5EOSJAekCiT44@heinlein.vulture-banana.ts.net>
References: <20231114160737.3209218-4-patrick@stwcx.xyz>
 <20231210215356.4154-1-fr0st61te@gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha256;
        protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="+15r0ml6tBo+jei6"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20231210215356.4154-1-fr0st61te@gmail.com>
Precedence: bulk


--+15r0ml6tBo+jei6
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On Mon, Dec 11, 2023 at 12:53:56AM +0300, Ivan Mikhaylov wrote:
>=20
> seems very similar to ncsi_rsp_handler_oem_gma except address_count, why =
it
> shouldn't be part of this call with additional param? What's inside it ju=
st
> code duplicity of ncsi_rsp_handler_oem_gma.
>=20
> And as we talked in openbmc mailing list, ndo_set_mac_address do not noti=
fy
> network layer about mac change and this fixed part already in
> ncsi_rsp_handler_oem_gma with 790071347a0a1a89e618eedcd51c687ea783aeb3 .
>=20
> David, any actions should be needed about fixing it in net-next? Need it =
to
> put patch above with fix or do the revert from net-next and make it right?

I agree that both of your recommendations might make the code better,
but I don't see why we would need to revert it.  The code does the
intended function for many use cases, even if you've identified a few
where calling `dev_set_mac_address` would be better.

Either you or I can send a "Fixes: " on this commit to improve the
handling as you're proposing.  While the change is likely trivial, I
have not had any chance to test it yet, so I've not sent it up myself.
If you want to refactor the code to reduce duplication, I think that should
be an entirely separate proposal.

--=20
Patrick Williams

--+15r0ml6tBo+jei6
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc"

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
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=Fw1V
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--+15r0ml6tBo+jei6--