From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from vps0.lunn.ch (vps0.lunn.ch [156.67.10.101]) (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 777FE499F3E; Wed, 7 Oct 2026 12:46:36 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=156.67.10.101 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1791377204; cv=none; b=Rbi/guJeaTENz0e6NrCXLxr6OsOLCMeGybNP6y4WjVE681YQmfcPkwaOyVpHpvZ/w8xjG9Tx+o9ursrqNGt5rMUi8jozO/T35w9C52jf+9kEeMyWvVu1YKU08QDGEOv1cl5rO3OFZYBIO5zYCQOx/DQpqM16brc7Hd0yf++q43A= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1791377204; c=relaxed/simple; bh=CPAe+go3PMAqJ1mXy918yjHzdAHAKrzUtNu+pQeY3lQ=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:Message-ID:References:MIME-Version: Content-Type:Content-Disposition:In-Reply-To; b=XQbJUIk7F5hNtkOZ3jslNdmhezyCQF7K9UhzO0yVARkYSjSBUHHuxl72IUv8J7pv/IpFM7vw7xgaqUpyRrNR+MbO5ZdMV7TylDOW5aqWl+Cz9J5PJFzRhjrvIT0IQlCzAFu3tTnXXWxV6QDTqdrqboPsfoqalmMvOLipmSWb5rY= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=lunn.ch; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=lunn.ch; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=lunn.ch header.i=@lunn.ch header.b=kVJML50H; arc=none smtp.client-ip=156.67.10.101 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=lunn.ch Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=lunn.ch Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=lunn.ch header.i=@lunn.ch header.b="kVJML50H" DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=lunn.ch; s=20171124; h=In-Reply-To:Content-Transfer-Encoding:Content-Disposition: Content-Type:MIME-Version:References:Message-ID:Subject:Cc:To:From:Date:From: Sender:Reply-To:Subject:Date:Message-ID:To:Cc:MIME-Version:Content-Type: Content-Transfer-Encoding:Content-ID:Content-Description:Content-Disposition: In-Reply-To:References; bh=qwwdE5uno6qscWQQkUPlsqQG/pEoiOmuJksC48r92JQ=; b=kV JML50HdB/LAHnEUI5xjUOBrM6MTr1HixosrcbvOshH6cgsrw28bdlShaPaNUSexC3Mj3bbqLV2ysv YLoxh1w/8LdHC48ISG8vg49k2BzffaE2evALHU7BO7I5WWfxAPgFYT2MzPL7VIXg+JKBJfkIXvREJ f+kbb8PB3dgpbUs=; Received: from andrew by vps0.lunn.ch with local (Exim 4.94.2) (envelope-from ) id 1xER2N-009SNb-8n; Wed, 07 Oct 2026 14:46:23 +0200 Date: Wed, 7 Oct 2026 14:46:23 +0200 From: Andrew Lunn To: James Hilliard Cc: Jakub Kicinski , netdev-bot+sinfo@kernel.org, netdev@vger.kernel.org, Paolo Abeni , Maxime Chevallier , Andrew Lunn , Eric Dumazet , Maxime Coquelin , Alexandre Torgue , Serge Semin , "David S. Miller" , Nicolai Buchwitz , linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH net v2] net: stmmac: unwind the WoL IRQ after a safety IRQ request failure Message-ID: References: <20261006-stmmac-irq-unwind-v2-1-194591c87460@gmail.com> <179127056620.2231598.8882282421523696709@kernel.org> <20261006155214.63c5cb5b@kernel.org> Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit In-Reply-To: On Tue, Oct 06, 2026 at 07:27:05PM -0600, James Hilliard wrote: > On Tue, Oct 6, 2026 at 6:57 PM Andrew Lunn wrote: > > > > On Tue, Oct 06, 2026 at 05:17:20PM -0600, James Hilliard wrote: > > > On Tue, Oct 6, 2026 at 4:52 PM Jakub Kicinski wrote: > > > > > > > > On Tue, 6 Oct 2026 01:14:52 -0600 James Hilliard wrote: > > > > > > Please do not repost the series just to address the above. Instead, > > > > > > reply to this email with the missing information, so that reviewers > > > > > > can take it into account. If the series needs another revision for > > > > > > other reasons, please include the information in the commit messages > > > > > > then. > > > > > > > > Please make sure you read this paragraph, to the end. > > > > > > How much detail should I be including? > > > > We want to decide should the patch go to net, because it is a real > > problem which bothers somebody. Or is it a theoretical problem which > > will never happen, so we might want net-next, or maybe /dev/null. > > I mean, it's in an error handling pathway that could be hit if there's > an -ENOMEM error on an IRQ-action allocation. ENOMEM does not happen for small allocations. https://lwn.net/Articles/627419/ So at first glance, this seems totally theoretical, it will never happen. So net-next, no need for a Fixes tag, etc. Andrew