Re: [PATCH 5.10 113/290] net: dsa: implement a central TX reallocation procedure

[gregkh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]

On Mon, Mar 15, 2021 at 07:56:02PM +0000, Vladimir Oltean wrote:
> +Andrew, Vivien,
> 
> On Mon, Mar 15, 2021 at 02:53:26PM +0100, gregkh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
> > From: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> >
> > From: Vladimir Oltean <vladimir.oltean@xxxxxxx>
> >
> > [ Upstream commit a3b0b6479700a5b0af2c631cb2ec0fb7a0d978f2 ]
> >
> > At the moment, taggers are left with the task of ensuring that the skb
> > headers are writable (which they aren't, if the frames were cloned for
> > TX timestamping, for flooding by the bridge, etc), and that there is
> > enough space in the skb data area for the DSA tag to be pushed.
> >
> > Moreover, the life of tail taggers is even harder, because they need to
> > ensure that short frames have enough padding, a problem that normal
> > taggers don't have.
> >
> > The principle of the DSA framework is that everything except for the
> > most intimate hardware specifics (like in this case, the actual packing
> > of the DSA tag bits) should be done inside the core, to avoid having
> > code paths that are very rarely tested.
> >
> > So provide a TX reallocation procedure that should cover the known needs
> > of DSA today.
> >
> > Note that this patch also gives the network stack a good hint about the
> > headroom/tailroom it's going to need. Up till now it wasn't doing that.
> > So the reallocation procedure should really be there only for the
> > exceptional cases, and for cloned packets which need to be unshared.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Vladimir Oltean <vladimir.oltean@xxxxxxx>
> > Tested-by: Christian Eggers <ceggers@xxxxxxx> # For tail taggers only
> > Tested-by: Kurt Kanzenbach <kurt@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > Reviewed-by: Florian Fainelli <f.fainelli@xxxxxxxxx>
> > Signed-off-by: Jakub Kicinski <kuba@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > Signed-off-by: Sasha Levin <sashal@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > ---
> 
> For context, Sasha explains here:
> https://www.spinics.net/lists/stable-commits/msg190151.html
> (the conversation is somewhat truncated, unfortunately, because
> stable-commits@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ate my replies)
> that 13 patches were backported to get the unrelated commit 9200f515c41f
> ("net: dsa: tag_mtk: fix 802.1ad VLAN egress") to apply cleanly with git-am.
> 
> I am not strictly against this, even though I would have liked to know
> that the maintainers were explicitly informed about it.
> 
> Greg, could you make your stable backporting emails include the output
> of ./get_maintainer.pl into the list of recipients? Thanks.

I cc: everyone on the signed-off-by list on the patch, why would we need
to add more?  A maintainer should always be on that list automatically.

thanks,

greg k-h