Re: [PATCH net-next 0/4] Fix broken PTP over IP on Ocelot switches

[Vladimir Oltean <vladimir.oltean@nxp.com>]

On Fri, Nov 26, 2021 at 10:35:07AM -0800, Jakub Kicinski wrote:
> On Fri, 26 Nov 2021 09:55:00 +0000 Vladimir Oltean wrote:
> > On Thu, Nov 25, 2021 at 07:01:01PM -0800, Jakub Kicinski wrote:
> > > On Thu, 25 Nov 2021 23:45:21 +0000 Vladimir Oltean wrote:
> > > > I don't know why I targeted these patches to "net-next". Habit I guess.
> > > > Nonetheless, they apply equally well to "net", can they be considered
> > > > for merging there without me resending?
> > >
> > > Only patch 1 looks like a fix, tho? Patch 4 seems to fall into
> > > the "this never worked and doesn't cause a crash" category.
> > >
> > > I'm hoping to send a PR tomorrow, so if you resend quickly it
> > > will be in net-next soon.
> >
> > It's true that a lot of work went into ocelot_vcap.c in order to make it
> > safely usable for traps outside of the tc-flower offload, and I
> > understand that you need to draw the line somewhere. But on the other
> > hand, this is fixing very real problems that are bothering real users.
> > Patch 1, not so much, it popped up as a result of discussions and
> > looking at code. None of the bugs fixed here cause a crash, it's just
> > that things don't work as expected. Technically, a user could still set
> > up the appropriate traps via tc-flower and PTP would work, but they'd
> > have to know that they need to, in the first place. So I would still be
> > very appreciative if all 4 patches would be considered for inclusion
> > into "net". I'm not expecting them to be backported very far, of course,
> > but as long as they reach at least v5.15 I'm happy.
>
> Alright, but please expect more push back going forward. Linus was
> pretty clear on what constitutes -rc material in the past, and we're
> sending quite a lot of code in each week..

Thanks, and please don't hesitate to push back.

If for any reason you're not comfortable including these in the "net"
pull request, I'm okay with that, but at least allow me to keep the
"Fixes:" tags on the patches (because they do address incomplete
functionality), and consider applying them to net-next. Then maybe the
AUTOSEL people will notice and pick them up :)

Anyway I've noticed that the linux-stable maintainers are much more
generous these days when it comes to backporting. For example, I shouted
a few months ago that a relatively large quantity of DSA refactoring
patches was brought into "stable" because of some other patch that
wouldn't apply 100% cleanly:
https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20210316162236.vmvulf3wlmtowdvf@skbuf/
But in the meantime I got used to it and I'm a bit more relaxed about it now.