Re: [PATCH v13 09/11] can: bcm: fix stale rx/tx ops after device removal

On 14.07.26 14:36, Marc Kleine-Budde wrote:
> On 14.07.2026 13:47:35, Oliver Hartkopp wrote:
>>>>> Pre-existing issues:
>>>>> - [High] Unprotected concurrent access to op->rx_stamp and op->rx_ifindex in bcm_rx_handler causes data races and torn 64-bit reads on 32-bit architectures.
>>>>
>>>> Fixed in patch 10
>>>
>>> Pre-existing issues are not a shot stopper, _new_ issues for a patch
>>> series are...usually are.
>>>
>>> Hopefully upstream will accept that you fix issues in a later patch that
>>> sashiko claim to be introduced by a patch in the series.
> 
> Sorry, let me clarify: This was a general statement.
> 
> I don't want to imply that _this_ patch introduces a new issue.
> 
> If you remove sashiko from this sentence it was valid before the LLM
> review bots. Rule of thumb: You should not introduce "bad" code and fix
> it later in a series. - As this is a huge amount of fixes that requires
> a lot of code changes, I hope upstream doesn't insist.

When there was a new issue pointed out by sashiko I fixed it inside the 
patch with --amend when it belonged to the topic of the patch.

So I tried to follow the one problem, one patch pattern. And every patch 
makes things better and introduces no new regressions (which sashiko-bot 
would have detected) - while probably not fixing everything at once.

Best regards,
Oliver

> 
>> Is it?
>>
>> Patch 10 Fixes: ffd980f976e7 ("[CAN]: Add broadcast manager (bcm) protocol")
>>
>> not anything in patch 9.
> 
> regards,
> Marc
>