Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next] net: ethernet: Switch back to struct platform_driver::remove()

From: Simon Horman <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 25 Sep 2024 21:07:56 +0100

On Wed, Sep 25, 2024 at 01:07:25PM +0200, Uwe Kleine-König wrote:
> Hello,
> 
> On Tue, Sep 24, 2024 at 01:53:47PM +0100, Simon Horman wrote:
> > On Tue, Sep 24, 2024 at 09:48:53AM +0200, Uwe Kleine-König wrote:
> > > On Tue, Sep 24, 2024 at 08:29:37AM +0100, Simon Horman wrote:
> > > > However, touching so many files does lead to a substantial risk of
> > > > conflicts. And indeed, the patch does not currently apply cleanly
> > > > to net-next (although it can trivially be made to do so). Perhaps
> > > > the maintainers can handle that, but I would suggest reposting in
> > > > a form that does apply cleanly so that automations can run.
> > > 
> > > I based it on plain next in the expectation that this matches the
> > > network tree well enough. I agree that the conflicts are not hard to
> > > resolve, but it's totally ok for me if only the parts of the patch are
> > > taken that apply without problems. I expect that I'll have to go through
> > > more than one subsystem a second time anyhow because new drivers pop up
> > > using the old idioms.
> > > 
> > > Also note that git can handle the changes just fine if you use
> > > 3-way merging:
> > > 
> > > 	uwe@taurus:~/gsrc/linux$ git checkout net-next/main 
> > > 	HEAD is now at 151ac45348af net: sparx5: Fix invalid timestamps
> > > 
> > > 	uwe@taurus:~/gsrc/linux$ b4 am -3 https://lore.kernel.org/all/[email-masked]/
> > > 	Grabbing thread from lore.kernel.org/all/[email-masked]/t.mbox.gz
> > > 	Analyzing 3 messages in the thread
> > > 	Analyzing 0 code-review messages
> > > 	Checking attestation on all messages, may take a moment...
> > > 	---
> > > 	  ✓ [PATCH] net: ethernet: Switch back to struct platform_driver::remove()
> > > 	    + Reviewed-by: Florian Fainelli <[email-masked]> (✓ DKIM/gmail.com)
> > > 	  ---
> > > 	  ✓ Signed: openpgp/[email-masked]
> > > 	  ✓ Signed: DKIM/baylibre-com.20230601.gappssmtp.com (From: [email-masked])
> > > 	---
> > > 	Total patches: 1
> > > 	Preared a fake commit range for 3-way merge (77e0c079ace8..198dd8fb7661)
> > > 	---
> > > 	 Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/[email-masked]
> > > 	 Base: using specified base-commit ef545bc03a65438cabe87beb1b9a15b0ffcb6ace
> > > 	       git checkout -b 20240923_u_kleine_koenig_baylibre_com ef545bc03a65438cabe87beb1b9a15b0ffcb6ace
> > > 	       git am -3 ./20240923_u_kleine_koenig_net_ethernet_switch_back_to_struct_platform_driver_remove.mbx
> > > 
> > > 	uwe@taurus:~/gsrc/linux$ git am -3 ./20240923_u_kleine_koenig_net_ethernet_switch_back_to_struct_platform_driver_remove.mbx
> > > 	Applying: net: ethernet: Switch back to struct platform_driver::remove()
> > > 	Using index info to reconstruct a base tree...
> > > 	M	drivers/net/ethernet/cirrus/ep93xx_eth.c
> > > 	M	drivers/net/ethernet/marvell/mvmdio.c
> > > 	M	drivers/net/ethernet/xilinx/xilinx_axienet_main.c
> > > 	Falling back to patching base and 3-way merge...
> > > 	Auto-merging drivers/net/ethernet/xilinx/xilinx_axienet_main.c
> > > 	Auto-merging drivers/net/ethernet/marvell/mvmdio.c
> > > 	Auto-merging drivers/net/ethernet/cirrus/ep93xx_eth.c
> > 
> > Understood, I agree the conflicts can trivially be resolved.
> > But as things stand the CI stopped when it couldn't apply
> > the patchset. And, IMHO, that is not the best.
> 
> So there is some room for improvement of said CI. It could use -3, or
> alternatively honor the "base-commit:" line in the footer of the mail.
> 
> (And yes, using net-next directly and getting the patch applied quickly
> works, too. And I understand that is most comfortable for your side. For
> my side however plain next is better as this is usually a good middle
> ground for all trees. And given that I have to track not only the 130+
> network drivers from this patch but also the 2000+ other drivers in the
> rest of the tree using net-next doesn't work so well.)

Yes, there is always room for improvement :)

Some input from the maintainers regarding their preferences would be welcome,
but I'll see about proposing something like that as patches for the CI.