linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] fsldma: use PCI Read Multiple command

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Fri, 12 Jun 2009 10:03:27 -0500
From:	Kumar Gala <galak@...nel.crashing.org>
To:	Li Yang <leoli@...escale.com>
Cc:	Ira Snyder <iws@...o.caltech.edu>,
	Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@...el.com>,
	Timur Tabi <timur@...escale.com>,
	David Hawkins <dwh@...o.caltech.edu>,
	Liu Dave-R63238 <DaveLiu@...escale.com>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linuxppc-dev@...abs.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] fsldma: use PCI Read Multiple command


On Jun 12, 2009, at 4:23 AM, Li Yang wrote:

> On Thu, Jun 11, 2009 at 11:17 PM, Ira Snyder<iws@...o.caltech.edu>  
> wrote:
>> On Wed, Jun 10, 2009 at 09:45:26PM -0500, Kumar Gala wrote:
>>>
>>> On Apr 27, 2009, at 3:49 PM, Dan Williams wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Mon, Apr 27, 2009 at 1:47 PM, Timur Tabi <timur@...escale.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>> Adding Kumar to the CC: list, since he might pick up the patch.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Acked-by: Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@...el.com>
>>>>
>>>> I agree with taking this through Kumar's tree.
>>>
>>> I'm going through patches for .31.. Should I still pick this up?   
>>> Going
>>> forward should I pick up fsldma patches?
>>>
>>
>> I'm fine with that, but you should probably talk to Li Yang (added to
>> CC). He's gotten in contact with me a few times recently.
>
> I am fine with both ways for this patch as it is only related to
> Freescale register details.  But in general I think patches should go
> through functional subsystem, as they usually would need insight of
> the subsystem architecture.  I prefer the way that the patch acked or
> signed-off by Freescale guys and push upstream through Dan's tree as
> most other subsystems did.  Unless Dan prefers to ack the subsystem
> architectural part of each patch and have them pushed other way.

I agree w/this and just wanting to see what Dan's preference is.

- k
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/