linux-kernel - Re: fb: Rework locking to fix lock ordering on takeover

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Tue, 15 Jan 2013 23:15:57 +0100
From:	"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...k.pl>
To:	sedat.dilek@...il.com
Cc:	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
	linux-fbdev@...r.kernel.org, LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
Subject: Re: fb: Rework locking to fix lock ordering on takeover

On Sunday, January 13, 2013 04:14:38 PM Sedat Dilek wrote:
> Hi Andrew,
> 
> your patch from [1] - as far as I followed - misses a lot of
> Reported-by#s and Tested-by#s (Boris, Jiri, etc.).
> Just one new R-b I have seen yesterday.
> 
> I have the original patch from Alan plus the two follow-ups from you
> in my patch-series against v3.8-{rc2,rc3} for quite a while.
> So, please feel free to add a Tested-by.
> 
> Unfortunately, your patch has introduced some (unwanted) extra chars
> like "_*" (comments only).
> I appreciate one single (new) patch like this, but please in a proper way.

Why don't you prepare such a patch?  I suppose you know everything you need?

> A disappeared/busy/not-answering maintainer is not an excuse for
> handling serious regressions (even here in this case there are fixes
> around),
> Personally, I am still missing a mei-driver fix [2] and a libata-dev fix [3].
> Both issues are not new to the maintainers.
> Not sure if shouting louder is the best strategy here.

[2] seems to be in the Greg's tree, so I suppose it's on its way to Linus and
please note that we're after a several days vacation period and people need to
process their backlogs.

Perhaps just ping the relevant maintainers when 3.8-rc4 is out (and do the same
after -rc5 and so on).

> It would be great to have a place like a "board of arbitration" where
> someone can send blames.
> And I remember vaguely Rafael had a nice list of issues (w/ reference
> to patches!).
> This was a real cool helpful innoivation!
> I can't remember why Rafael stopped his nice service to the
> Linux-kernel community.

Because I don't have the time to do that any more.  Yes, it was useful, but it
also was quite a bit of work.  Would you volunteer to do that?

Rafael


> [1] https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/1969391/
> [2] http://git.kernel.org/?p=linux/kernel/git/gregkh/char-misc.git;a=commitdiff;h=e6028db0146cf5a68dbd1508225ea49840997880
> [3] http://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/206897/
-- 
I speak only for myself.
Rafael J. Wysocki, Intel Open Source Technology Center.
--
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/