Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel+bounces-119423-linux.lists.archive=gmail.com@vger.kernel.org designates 2604:1380:45d1:ec00::1 as permitted sender) client-ip=2604:1380:45d1:ec00::1;
From: Jose Ignacio Tornos Martinez <jtornosm@redhat.com>
To: horms@kernel.org
Cc: dave.stevenson@raspberrypi.com,
	davem@davemloft.net,
	edumazet@google.com,
	jtornosm@redhat.com,
	kuba@kernel.org,
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
	linux-usb@vger.kernel.org,
	netdev@vger.kernel.org,
	pabeni@redhat.com,
	stable@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] net: usb: ax88179_178a: avoid the interface always configured as random address
Date: Tue, 26 Mar 2024 17:05:37 +0100
Message-ID: <20240326160540.224450-1-jtornosm@redhat.com>
In-Reply-To: <20240326092459.GG403975@kernel.org>
References: <20240326092459.GG403975@kernel.org>
Precedence: bulk
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit

Hello Simon,

>> In addition, if mac address can not be read from the driver, a random
>> address is configured again, so it is not necessary to call
>> eth_hw_addr_random from here. Indeed, in this situtatuon, when reset was
>> also executed from bind, this was invalidating the check to configure if the
>> assigned mac address for the interface was random or not.
>
> I also agree with your analysis here. However it does seem to be a separate
> problem. And perhaps warrants a separate patch. I am also wondering
> if this is more of a clean-up than a fix: does it cause a bug
> that is observable by users?
You are right, really it is a separate improvement or simplification.
Right now, it is not affecting the users and it is not producing any
problem, just a second random address is generated if there is any problem,
and this is not necessary, because there is a random address generated
previously.
When the extra reset was done during binding operation, as we were modifying
the pregenerated random address, the check in usbnet_probe was useless.
Ok, I will split the patch in two to be considered separately, the first
with the important fix and the second with the commented improvement or
clean-up. 

> nit: AFAIK, if one arm of a conditional has curly-brackets, then all should.
>     So there is no need to drop them here.
I didn't know the related criteria, I will do as you say.

Thank you

Best regards
José Ignacio