Hi Jakub, On Fri, Jul 17, 2020 at 11:18 PM Jakub Kicinski <k...@kernel.org> wrote: > > On Fri, 17 Jul 2020 10:41:49 +0530 sundeep subbaraya wrote: > > On Fri, Jul 17, 2020 at 5:41 AM Jakub Kicinski <k...@kernel.org> wrote: > > > On Wed, 15 Jul 2020 18:08:09 +0530 Subbaraya Sundeep wrote: > > > > @@ -1730,10 +1745,149 @@ static void otx2_reset_task(struct work_struct > > > > *work) > > > > if (!netif_running(pf->netdev)) > > > > return; > > > > > > > > + rtnl_lock(); > > > > otx2_stop(pf->netdev); > > > > pf->reset_count++; > > > > otx2_open(pf->netdev); > > > > netif_trans_update(pf->netdev); > > > > + rtnl_unlock(); > > > > +} > > > > > > This looks unrelated, otherwise for the patches: > > > > You mean the lock/unlock logic with this patch? > > Looks very much like a bug independent of the PTP support. > > Also > $ git grep reset_task drivers/net/ethernet/marvell/octeontx2/ > Doesn't reveal any place where you would flush or cancel that work. > > > I can separate this out and put in another patch #4 if you insist. > > Does someone need to insist for you to fix your bugs in the current > release cycle? That's a basic part of the kernel release process :/
My confusion was whether it is okay to modify patches after Acked-by because reviewers have to review again. It is clear now. Thanks, Sundeep
