[PATCH] net/ibm/emac: bump version numbers for correct work with ethtool

Register dump out work preventing with 
old ethtool + new driver and new ethtool + old driver.

---
 drivers/net/ethernet/ibm/emac/core.h |    6 +++---
 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)

diff --git a/drivers/net/ethernet/ibm/emac/core.h b/drivers/net/ethernet/ibm/emac/core.h
index 28df374..ac02c67 100644
--- a/drivers/net/ethernet/ibm/emac/core.h
+++ b/drivers/net/ethernet/ibm/emac/core.h

@@ -460,8 +460,8 @@ struct emac_ethtool_regs_subhdr {
 	u32 index;
 };
 
-#define EMAC_ETHTOOL_REGS_VER		0
-#define EMAC4_ETHTOOL_REGS_VER		1
-#define EMAC4SYNC_ETHTOOL_REGS_VER	2
+#define EMAC_ETHTOOL_REGS_VER		3
+#define EMAC4_ETHTOOL_REGS_VER		4
+#define EMAC4SYNC_ETHTOOL_REGS_VER	5
 
 #endif /* __IBM_NEWEMAC_CORE_H */

-- 
1.7.9.5

From: Ivan Mikhaylov <redacted>
Date: Wed, 23 Sep 2015 14:42:22 +0400

Register dump out work preventing with 
old ethtool + new driver and new ethtool + old driver.

First of all you didn't provide a proper Signoff.

Second of all, there was so much discussion about whether this does
or does not break things for various combinations of old/new ethtool
and kernel.

Therefore I want a real detailed commit message that explains why this
is all OK.  After so much confusion and discussion, providing a patch
with absolutely no commit message is completely inappropriate.

On Wed, 2015-09-23 at 11:05 -0700, David Miller wrote:

From: Ivan Mikhaylov <redacted>
Date: Wed, 23 Sep 2015 14:42:22 +0400

quoted

Register dump out work preventing with 
old ethtool + new driver and new ethtool + old driver.

First of all you didn't provide a proper Signoff.

Second of all, there was so much discussion about whether this does
or does not break things for various combinations of old/new ethtool
and kernel.

Therefore I want a real detailed commit message that explains why this
is all OK.  After so much confusion and discussion, providing a patch
with absolutely no commit message is completely inappropriate.

I would suggest something like this:

"""
The size of the MAC register dump used to be the size specified by the
reg property in the device tree.  Userland has no good way of finding
out that size, and it was not specified consistently for each MAC type,
so ethtool would end up printing junk at the end of the register dump
if the device tree didn't match the size it assumed.

Using the new version numbers indicates unambiguously that the size of
the MAC register dump is dependent only on the MAC type.

Fixes: 5369c71f7ca2 ("net/ibm/emac: fix size of emac dump memory areas")
"""

Also:

Acked-by: Ben Hutchings <redacted>

Ben.

-- 
Ben Hutchings
Teamwork is essential - it allows you to blame someone else.

On Wed, 23 Sep 2015 11:05:49 -0700 (PDT)
"David Miller" [off-list ref] wrote:

From: Ivan Mikhaylov <redacted>
Date: Wed, 23 Sep 2015 14:42:22 +0400

quoted

Register dump out work preventing with 
old ethtool + new driver and new ethtool + old driver.

First of all you didn't provide a proper Signoff.

Second of all, there was so much discussion about whether this does
or does not break things for various combinations of old/new ethtool
and kernel.

Therefore I want a real detailed commit message that explains why this
is all OK.  After so much confusion and discussion, providing a patch
with absolutely no commit message is completely inappropriate.

David, my apologies for signoff and description, I admit that is inappropriate.
Ben proposed one, is it eligible?
Need I resubmit patch with sign and detailed description?

From: Ivan Mikhaylov <redacted>
Date: Fri, 25 Sep 2015 08:07:52 +0400

Ben proposed one, is it eligible?
Need I resubmit patch with sign and detailed description?

If I genuinely need to answer that question, maybe you should sit back
for a little while and think about it yourself, ok?

On Thu, 24 Sep 2015 22:53:03 -0700 (PDT)
"David Miller" [off-list ref] wrote:

From: Ivan Mikhaylov <redacted>
Date: Fri, 25 Sep 2015 08:07:52 +0400

quoted

Ben proposed one, is it eligible?
Need I resubmit patch with sign and detailed description?

If I genuinely need to answer that question, maybe you should sit back
for a little while and think about it yourself, ok?

Sorry, for those stupid questions.

David, Ben, thanks for the help.