[0/2] net: dsa: mv88e6xxx: fix vlan filtering for 6250

Message

Rasmus Villemoes Jan. 16, 2021, 2:39 a.m. UTC

I finally managed to figure out why enabling VLAN filtering on the
6250 broke all (ingressing) traffic,
cf. https://lore.kernel.org/netdev/[e-mail]/
.

The first patch is the minimal fix and for net, while the second one
is a little cleanup for net-next.

Rasmus Villemoes (2):
  net: dsa: mv88e6xxx: also read STU state in mv88e6250_g1_vtu_getnext
  net: dsa: mv88e6xxx: use mv88e6185_g1_vtu_getnext() for the 6250

 drivers/net/dsa/mv88e6xxx/chip.c        |  2 +-
 drivers/net/dsa/mv88e6xxx/global1.h     |  2 --
 drivers/net/dsa/mv88e6xxx/global1_vtu.c | 32 ++-----------------------
 3 files changed, 3 insertions(+), 33 deletions(-)

Comments

Vladimir Oltean Jan. 17, 2021, 9:08 p.m. UTC | #1

Hi Rasmus,

On Sat, Jan 16, 2021 at 03:39:34AM +0100, Rasmus Villemoes wrote:
> I finally managed to figure out why enabling VLAN filtering on the
> 6250 broke all (ingressing) traffic,
> cf. https://lore.kernel.org/netdev/[e-mail]/
> .
> 
> The first patch is the minimal fix and for net, while the second one
> is a little cleanup for net-next.
> 
> Rasmus Villemoes (2):
>   net: dsa: mv88e6xxx: also read STU state in mv88e6250_g1_vtu_getnext
>   net: dsa: mv88e6xxx: use mv88e6185_g1_vtu_getnext() for the 6250

It's strange to put a patch for net and one for net-next in the same
series. Nobody will keep a note for you to apply the second patch after
net has been merged back into net-next. So if you want to keep the
two-patch approach, you'd have to send just the "net" patch now, and the
"net-next" patch later.
But is there any reason why you don't just apply the second patch to
"net"?

Rasmus Villemoes Jan. 18, 2021, 1:22 p.m. UTC | #2

On 17/01/2021 22.08, Vladimir Oltean wrote:
> Hi Rasmus,
> 
> On Sat, Jan 16, 2021 at 03:39:34AM +0100, Rasmus Villemoes wrote:
>> I finally managed to figure out why enabling VLAN filtering on the
>> 6250 broke all (ingressing) traffic,
>> cf. https://lore.kernel.org/netdev/[e-mail]/
>> .
>>
>> The first patch is the minimal fix and for net, while the second one
>> is a little cleanup for net-next.
>>
>> Rasmus Villemoes (2):
>>   net: dsa: mv88e6xxx: also read STU state in mv88e6250_g1_vtu_getnext
>>   net: dsa: mv88e6xxx: use mv88e6185_g1_vtu_getnext() for the 6250
> 
> It's strange to put a patch for net and one for net-next in the same
> series. 

Well, maybe, but one is a logical continuation of the other, and
including the second one preempted review comments saying "why don't you
merge the two implementations".

> But is there any reason why you don't just apply the second patch to
> "net"?

That's not really for me to decide? I thought net was just for the
things that needed fixing and should be sent to -stable - which is the
only reason I even split this in two, so there's a minimal logical fix
for the 6250. Otherwise I'd just have squashed the two, so that I don't
add lines only to delete them, along with the rest of the function, later.

Jakub, David, it's up to you.

Rasmus

Jakub Kicinski Jan. 18, 2021, 9:08 p.m. UTC | #3

On Mon, 18 Jan 2021 14:22:57 +0100 Rasmus Villemoes wrote:
> On 17/01/2021 22.08, Vladimir Oltean wrote:
> > Hi Rasmus,
> > 
> > On Sat, Jan 16, 2021 at 03:39:34AM +0100, Rasmus Villemoes wrote:  
> >> I finally managed to figure out why enabling VLAN filtering on the
> >> 6250 broke all (ingressing) traffic,
> >> cf. https://lore.kernel.org/netdev/[e-mail]/
> >> .
> >>
> >> The first patch is the minimal fix and for net, while the second one
> >> is a little cleanup for net-next.
> >>
> >> Rasmus Villemoes (2):
> >>   net: dsa: mv88e6xxx: also read STU state in mv88e6250_g1_vtu_getnext
> >>   net: dsa: mv88e6xxx: use mv88e6185_g1_vtu_getnext() for the 6250  
> > 
> > It's strange to put a patch for net and one for net-next in the same
> > series.   
> 
> Well, maybe, but one is a logical continuation of the other, and
> including the second one preempted review comments saying "why don't you
> merge the two implementations".
> 
> > But is there any reason why you don't just apply the second patch to
> > "net"?  
> 
> That's not really for me to decide? I thought net was just for the
> things that needed fixing and should be sent to -stable - which is the
> only reason I even split this in two, so there's a minimal logical fix
> for the 6250. Otherwise I'd just have squashed the two, so that I don't
> add lines only to delete them, along with the rest of the function, later.
> 
> Jakub, David, it's up to you.

Vladimir is right, this is a strange way to post things. In the future
please send just the "net" changes first and include a note in the
cover letter or under "---" saying something like "cleanup of XYZ is
left for a followup in -next".

I've applied patch 1 please resend the cleanup after net->net-next
merge (~Friday).

Thanks!