From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from out-173.mta0.migadu.com (out-173.mta0.migadu.com [91.218.175.173]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 852B3394492 for ; Thu, 7 May 2026 09:00:21 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=91.218.175.173 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1778144427; cv=none; b=t+gQmvrUp9DPT8yUzCJ2V/WLIrsuoTHrJWO3Tg3y7u+qmrJCQMSXu4b1HWi4TRKwXfiEfJlZKdCLQjCAjZpDV5x1CQFSHdD2j8gROWFR4cAuxpL9AoAiTN8c5lYzzDe5j5Du1Ui8fMdw4m5Wcv0jhv7acXFK6EF10MQVawuwauU= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1778144427; c=relaxed/simple; bh=axho4yXyXmif/8PIcen42f/ju/wVpDekXPd1BTpmvtI=; h=Message-ID:Date:MIME-Version:Subject:To:Cc:References:From: In-Reply-To:Content-Type; b=t6ANWmMmyo47M64Z18IZ9XWcHBwzhNFNFOGR87Y82NDP9cfB51SfGCBcOtTcFKC5k40xbbd0a2QCRFAu+LliLHQ6FH+ahkdnCbHegSDAjlBR8v3ibo2RHoNnrj+yaHW1qUYR3pLNmDdVKHp8Ri+IePYjcznY5BxIYBQeO8rAO70= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=linux.dev; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=linux.dev; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=linux.dev header.i=@linux.dev header.b=FUno6wuJ; arc=none smtp.client-ip=91.218.175.173 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=linux.dev Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=linux.dev Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=linux.dev header.i=@linux.dev header.b="FUno6wuJ" Message-ID: <6ad7864c-b320-4b40-b627-41a986d60ecd@linux.dev> DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=linux.dev; s=key1; t=1778144407; h=from:from:reply-to:subject:subject:date:date:message-id:message-id: to:to:cc:cc:mime-version:mime-version:content-type:content-type: content-transfer-encoding:content-transfer-encoding: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references; bh=ezFd5wwZ/Wt8ZONPaERbTtUkc3/tI2+40VyZTVt60A0=; b=FUno6wuJ//4BbEDcjHNSOtV1n4fI/D7saoOHnl1hrn4XGYMuqDAC/cPa+/U7W7AdP7tree TT0o293xYymaNfwuXcTVzbnrVv+0HSkk7bSs/wzdIxOisKFxHp01UYeAUL9emlfZDdf1vw IxhbsB2GlW1Vgj1BMa39zitz4/NwEvo= Date: Thu, 7 May 2026 16:59:42 +0800 Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: linux-serial@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next 2/3] ppp: unify two channel structs To: Sebastian Andrzej Siewior Cc: Paolo Abeni , Andrew Lunn , "David S. Miller" , Eric Dumazet , Jakub Kicinski , Jiri Kosina , David Sterba , Greg Kroah-Hartman , Jiri Slaby , Chas Williams <3chas3@gmail.com>, Simon Horman , James Chapman , Kees Cook , Taegu Ha , Guillaume Nault , Eric Woudstra , Arnd Bergmann , Dawid Osuchowski , Breno Leitao , linux-ppp@vger.kernel.org, netdev@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-serial@vger.kernel.org, linux-atm-general@lists.sourceforge.net References: <20260430090532.244758-1-qingfang.deng@linux.dev> <20260430090532.244758-2-qingfang.deng@linux.dev> <590d7931-02b0-45d6-8f43-ef909c9bde89@redhat.com> <20260507074051.mqO5DaWL@linutronix.de> <20260507084645.mpK7rdPn@linutronix.de> X-Report-Abuse: Please report any abuse attempt to abuse@migadu.com and include these headers. From: Qingfang Deng In-Reply-To: <20260507084645.mpK7rdPn@linutronix.de> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Migadu-Flow: FLOW_OUT On 2026/5/7 16:46, Sebastian Andrzej Siewior wrote: > On 2026-05-07 16:33:36 [+0800], Qingfang Deng wrote: >> On 2026/5/7 15:40, Sebastian Andrzej Siewior wrote: >>> On 2026-05-07 13:53:30 [+0800], Qingfang Deng wrote: >>>>> This patch is IMHO a bit too big and should be split. Also this kind of >>>>> refactor looks very invasive and potentially regression prone. I think >>>>> it should include a signficant self-test coverage increase. >>>> This is indeed too big. But how do I split it without breaking the build? >>> The current ppp tests would yell if you accidentally broke something? >> By "breaking the build" I meant compile-time errors (due to API changes). > If this change would flip the logic somewhere and as such break ppp at > runtime. > Would the existing test suite be able to catch it? The current self-test only covers PPP async and PPPoE, and that's why Paolo suggests more self-tests.