On 11/27/25 10:53 AM, Maxime Chevallier wrote:

Hi Chris,

On 27/11/2025 04:00, Jakub Kicinski wrote:

quoted

On Sat, 22 Nov 2025 13:42:59 +0100 Maxime Chevallier wrote:

quoted

This is v19 of the phy_port work. Patches 2 and 3 lack PHY maintainers reviews.

This v19 has no changes compared to v18, but patch 2 was rebased on top
of the recent 1.6T linkmodes.

Thanks for everyone's patience and reviews on that work ! Now, the
usual blurb for the series description.

Hopefully we can still make v6.19, but we hooked up Claude Code review
to patchwork this week, and it points out some legit issues here :(
Some look transient but others are definitely legit, please look thru
this:

[ ... urls mangled by meta email ... ]

I was told by Paolo to reach out with any feedback on the LLM reviews :

Thanks for sending these along, it really helps me fix up the prompts.

[ ... ]

Does priv->line_interface need to be reset when enable is false? The
old mv2222_sfp_remove() explicitly set it to PHY_INTERFACE_MODE_NA,
but the new code leaves it at whatever value was set during the last
module insertion. Functions like mv2222_config_aneg() check whether
priv->line_interface equals PHY_INTERFACE_MODE_NA to determine if a
module is present.

--------x8----------------------------------------------------------------------


Looking at the call-sites, we can see that when the .configure_mii port ops is
called with enabled = false, the interface is always PHY_INTERFACE_MODE_NA.

Looks like the potential problem was identified correctly, but it failed to see
that this can't ever happen.

This is also a problem for bpf reviews, where claude finds a pretty
detailed path to a bug that can never happen in practice.  I'll use this
and a few similar false positive reports to try and improve the
elimination of impossible bugs.

It's a bit tricky I guess, as the call-site in question
is introduced by a previous patch in the same series though.

This part shouldn't be a factor (I hope), but I'll check.

-chris