On Thu, Feb 17, 2022 at 07:20:30PM +0100, Christophe JAILLET wrote:
> Le 17/02/2022 à 08:59, Simon Horman a écrit :
> > On Fri, Feb 11, 2022 at 04:53:56PM -0800, Jakub Kicinski wrote:
> > > On Thu, 10 Feb 2022 23:34:52 +0100 Christophe JAILLET wrote:
> > > > ida_simple_get() returns an id between min (0) and max (NFP_MAX_MAC_INDEX)
> > > > inclusive.
> > > > So NFP_MAX_MAC_INDEX (0xff) is a valid id.
> > > >
> > > > In order for the error handling path to work correctly, the 'invalid'
> > > > value for 'ida_idx' should not be in the 0..NFP_MAX_MAC_INDEX range,
> > > > inclusive.
> > > >
> > > > So set it to -1.
> > > >
> > > > Fixes: 20cce8865098 ("nfp: flower: enable MAC address sharing for offloadable devs")
> > > > Signed-off-by: Christophe JAILLET <christophe.jaillet@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > >
> > > This patch is a fix and the other one is refactoring. They can't be
> > > in the same series because they need to go to different trees. Please
> > > repost the former with [PATCH net] and ~one week later the latter with
> > > [PATCH net-next].
> >
> > Thanks Jakub.
> >
> > Christophe, please let me know if you'd like me to handle reposting
> > the patches as described by Jakub.
> >
> Hi,
>
> If you can, it's fine for me.
>
> I must admit that what I consider, as an hobbyist, too much bureaucracy is
> sometimes discouraging.
>
> I do understand the need for maintainers to have things the way they need,
> but, well, maybe sometimes it is too much.
>
> In this particular case, maybe patch 1/2 could be applied to net as-is, and
> 2/2 just dropped because not really useful.
>
>
> (Just the thoughts of a tired man after a long day at work, don't worry,
> tomorrow, I'll be in a better mood)
Thanks Christophe,
I appreciate your frustration and apologise for my part in it.
I'll work on getting this short series accepted upstream.
