Re: [PATCH net V3] net: stmmac: Premature loop termination check was ignored

[Simon Horman]

On Thu, Feb 23, 2023 at 12:34:18PM +0100, Jochen Henneberg wrote:
> 
> Andrew Lunn <andrew@xxxxxxx> writes:
> 
> > On Wed, Feb 22, 2023 at 04:49:55PM +0100, Henneberg - Systemdesign wrote:
> >> 
> >> Simon Horman <simon.horman@xxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
> >> 
> >> > On Wed, Feb 22, 2023 at 08:38:28AM +0100, Jochen Henneberg wrote:
> >> >> 
> >> >> The premature loop termination check makes sense only in case of the
> >> >> jump to read_again where the count may have been updated. But
> >> >> read_again did not include the check.
> >> >> 
> >> >> Fixes: bba2556efad6 ("net: stmmac: Enable RX via AF_XDP zero-copy")
> >> >
> >> > This commit was included in v5.13
> >> >
> >> >> Fixes: ec222003bd94 ("net: stmmac: Prepare to add Split Header support")
> >> >
> >> > While this one was included in v5.4
> >> >
> >> > It seems to me that each of the above commits correspond to one
> >> > of the two hunks below. I don't know if that means this
> >> > patch should be split in two to assist backporting.
> >> >
> >> 
> >> I was thinking about this already but the change was so trivial that I
> >> hesitated to split it into two commits. I wanted I will surely change
> >> this.
> >
> > The advantage of splitting is that it makes back porting easy. Both
> > parts are needed for 6.1 and 5.15. 5.10 only needs the fix for
> > ec222003bd94. It if does not easily apply to 5.10 it could get
> > dropped. By splitting it, the backporting probably happens fully
> > automated, no human involved.
> 
> Understood. Will do the split and send two new patches. I will not
> continue with version upcounting and not send a patch series but two
> completly independent patches.

There may be fuzz if the patches are not applied in order.
I'd suggest making a series.