Re: [PATCH iwl-net v2 1/2] ice: detach the VF representor when ice_start_vfs() fails

[Tony Nguyen <anthony.l.nguyen@intel.com>]

On 9/28/2026 12:14 AM, Linkui Xiao wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> Thanks for the review. Please find the missing information below.
> 
> - How the issue was discovered:
>    Found during manual code inspection of the ice VF setup/teardown 
> error paths. It was not reported by syzbot, a static analysis tool, or 
> an LLM scan, and was not hit in production.
> 
> - Whether the issue was actually triggered:
>    Not actually triggered. It is a theoretical error-path cleanup issue 
> found by inspection; no stack trace or error message was observed.
> 
> - Hardware tested:
>    Not tested on real hardware. The change was only compile-tested; no 
> affected Intel NIC/firmware test was performed.
> 
> The same applies to patch 2/2: it was also found by the same manual code 
> inspection, was not triggered at runtime, and was only compile-tested, 
> not tested on real hardware.
> 
> If a v3 is needed for other review reasons, I will include this 
> information in the commit messages.
> 
> Thanks,
> Linkui Xiao
> 
> On 2026/9/28 14:59, netdev-bot+sinfo@kernel.org wrote:
>> Hi!
>>
>> This is an automated message. This series looks like a fix, but its
>> commit messages seem to be missing some information:
>>
>>   - How the issue was discovered, e.g. hit in production, hit during
>>     development, syzbot report, manual code inspection, LLM or static
>>     analysis tool scan.
>>
>>   - Whether the issue was actually triggered, or is only theoretical
>>     (e.g. found by code inspection). If it was triggered please include
>>     the symptoms, like the stack trace or error messages.
>>
>>   - What hardware the change was tested on. For driver fixes please
>>     mention the device (and if relevant firmware version) used for
>>     testing, or say that the change was not tested on real hardware.
>>
>> 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.

Hi Jakub,

For patches that go through iwl-net, how did you want this handled? It 
says to not repost just to address the above, but since this will get 
submitted later, did you want the commit updated to make the latter 
check happy, did you want me to copy/paste the response to the commit, 
or something else?

Thanks,
Tony

>> The evaluation is done by an LLM so it may be wrong, if you think
>> that is the case please reply and explain.
>