RE: [EXT] Re: [PATCH v2 net 2/2] net: fec: restructuring the functions to avoid forward declarations

[Shenwei Wang]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Simon Horman <horms@xxxxxxxxxx>
> Sent: Wednesday, May 3, 2023 2:07 PM
> To: Shenwei Wang <shenwei.wang@xxxxxxx>
> Cc: Andrew Lunn <andrew@xxxxxxx>; Wei Fang <wei.fang@xxxxxxx>; David S.
> Miller <davem@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Eric Dumazet <edumazet@xxxxxxxxxx>; Jakub
> Kicinski <kuba@xxxxxxxxxx>; Paolo Abeni <pabeni@xxxxxxxxxx>; Clark Wang
> <xiaoning.wang@xxxxxxx>; dl-linux-imx <linux-imx@xxxxxxx>; Alexei
> Starovoitov <ast@xxxxxxxxxx>; Daniel Borkmann <daniel@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>;
> Jesper Dangaard Brouer <hawk@xxxxxxxxxx>; John Fastabend
> <john.fastabend@xxxxxxxxx>; Alexander Lobakin
> <alexandr.lobakin@xxxxxxxxx>; netdev@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; linux-
> kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; imx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: Re: [EXT] Re: [PATCH v2 net 2/2] net: fec: restructuring the functions to
> avoid forward declarations
>
> Caution: This is an external email. Please take care when clicking links or
> opening attachments. When in doubt, report the message using the 'Report this
> email' button
>
>
> On Wed, May 03, 2023 at 06:41:59PM +0000, Shenwei Wang wrote:
>
> ...
>
> > > > > On Tue, May 02, 2023 at 05:08:18PM -0500, Shenwei Wang wrote:
> > > > > > The patch reorganizes functions related to XDP frame
> > > > > > transmission, moving them above the fec_enet_run_xdp
> > > > > > implementation. This eliminates the need for forward declarations of
> these functions.
> > > > >
> > > > > I'm confused. Are these two patches in the wrong order?
> > > > >
> > > > > The reason that i asked you to fix the forward declaration in
> > > > > net-next is that it makes your fix two patches. Sometimes that
> > > > > is not obvious to people back porting patches, and one gets
> > > > > lost, causing build problems. So it is better to have a single
> > > > > patch which is maybe not 100% best practice merged to stable,
> > > > > and then a cleanup patch
> > > merged to the head of development.
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > If that is the case, we should forgo the second patch. Its purpose
> > > > was to reorganize function order such that the subsequent patch to
> > > > net-next enabling XDP_TX would not encounter forward declaration issues.
> > >
> > > I think a good plan would be, as I understood Andrew's original
> > > suggestion,
> > > to:
> > >
> > > 1. Only have patch 2/2, targeted at 'net', for now 2. Later, once
> > > that patch has been accepted into 'net', 'net-next' has
> > >    reopened, and that patch is present in 'net-next', then follow-up
> > >    with patch 1/2, which is a cleanup.
> >
> > So should I re-submit the patch? Or you just take the 1st patch and
> > drop the 2nd one?
>
> net and net-next work on a granularity of patch-sets.
> So I would suggest re-submitting only patch 2/2 for 'net'.
>

Hi Simon,

I'm a bit confused.

Are you suggesting that I submit the following restructuring patch for 'net' at this time?
[PATCH v2 net 2/2] net: fec: restructuring the functions to avoid forward declarations

Thanks,
Shenwei


> I would also suggest waiting 24h between posting v2 and v3, as per
> https://kernel.or/
> g%2Fdoc%2Fhtml%2Fnext%2Fprocess%2Fmaintainer-
> netdev.html&data=05%7C01%7Cshenwei.wang%40nxp.com%7Ca451f7a0cf674
> 0b0561d08db4c09a558%7C686ea1d3bc2b4c6fa92cd99c5c301635%7C0%7C0%7
> C638187376528990151%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwM
> DAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C
> &sdata=wBrPt7eKO2Y8ve%2B%2BG8STtZZVS9YdQR11YUL6wcwJ29M%3D&rese
> rved=0
>