From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from smtp.kernel.org (aws-us-west-2-korg-mail-alma10-1.taild15c8.ts.net [100.103.45.18]) (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 4F345424D64 for ; Wed, 19 Aug 2026 09:01:56 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=100.103.45.18 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1787130120; cv=none; b=Cf3rNX15byC5BfcmFBSg+jMGPjeJOZxa6WuT1daIC//F949vT5WpYHyOLAdtzOBgD3aeKoJ2LVF0uOarKVQX6pS7swbsT1tpxcHYpFcnqgzEqRgVyXTodVsdth36ELWSKEYgB89YF5cWDZQSS7UUY0ex13FpCBSEqK/t0gB2JHs= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1787130120; c=relaxed/simple; bh=qbLrM6PLrNeKxQQOTH7JHbQXbbIE+zf85AT7ZT/+4y4=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:Message-ID:References:MIME-Version: Content-Type:Content-Disposition:In-Reply-To; b=ZiPGCVywBrAjU8N3/4VvOUotPKu++c0qZGVtvQqkAPHGxRquNicuw/ZF7R8w4NinTRQSwoSrNUnfQZf05KD5BVRglwCuESRBSDsbgWcNA/39D4m9KUJORb/UqBmHDSoEcVoshH3JFQkrKEhCPn9mAUov/B+7HEyOH5af39BHqQc= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=kernel.org header.i=@kernel.org header.b=MRbtrHwA; arc=none smtp.client-ip=100.103.45.18 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=kernel.org header.i=@kernel.org header.b="MRbtrHwA" Received: by smtp.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 425AA1F000E9; Wed, 19 Aug 2026 09:01:54 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=kernel.org; s=k20260515; t=1787130115; bh=SXNsoD/tX2+QDTeO9Gg1jZS1H1/EqNBb9GNa2MJc4z0=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:References:In-Reply-To; b=MRbtrHwAjMoImaVsUiz8rasiCCVw1QUjbg2CXwW2LFb80Gu5XAoVi6V3gwZ7lQhTl uazTzFj+phyGoK/je//qAszcPqUvbI+oymUKnU1EKsyVfCtCpG2na/74Lg8JIALjym Sk2gyxZgNQkj/FbWRbijHRvl7+yknlyNvF7c90AHjQj0Cv4gMXjfD2deeXyC6talKA wUhrg5FCwu7Mpkr6SD3AQsS5Z4ULSb5y/i2mikjxs9JeutWKoPYyVWrrlcH3YHpgG3 K79DxzrMEmjnfFd53Up1PnlIKNWEoiDo0aaUQth74RyQuBDOkg/LcpGaaHyO/owpFO rPf2t3cMIDydQ== Date: Wed, 19 Aug 2026 10:01:51 +0100 From: Simon Horman To: James Cc: Raju Rangoju , Prashanth Kumar K R , netdev@vger.kernel.org, Thomas.Lendacky@amd.com Subject: Re: [PATCH net] net: amd-xgbe: support receiving packets with bad FCS Message-ID: <20260819090151.GO265046@horms.kernel.org> References: <20260814100916.GL265046@horms.kernel.org> <20260819023602.10387-1-aslan.jnn@gmail.com> Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: netdev@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20260819023602.10387-1-aslan.jnn@gmail.com> On Wed, Aug 19, 2026 at 12:36:01PM +1000, James wrote: > On Fri, Aug 14, 2026 at 11:09:16AM +0100, Simon Horman wrote: > > FWIW, I lean towards this being an enhancement for net-next without > > a Fixes tag. Rather than a fix. > > Hi Simon, thank you for the review! Apologise for the late reply as I was > unwell last week. > > My rationale for targeting `net` was that the driver currently accepts bad > FCS frames by default, which I believe should be an incorrect existing behavior. > The `NETIF_F_RXALL` I added is intended to preserve access to that behavior > only when a user explicitly requests it. > > With that said, I understand that exposing the `rx-all` control may make > this better suited for `net-next`. Do you prefer that I respin this as a > `net-next` patch (when it opens later this month), or do you think the > default-behavior correction justifies keeping it in `net`? I do lean towards this being for net-next. But if you feel strongly that it is for net, I won't push the matter any further. BTW, net-next is currently closed. So if you do post it for net-next you will need to wait for it to reopen around 31st August.