linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 1/3] ARM: mach-omap2: remove bogus "or

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, 22 Jul 2016 22:55:24 -0700
From:	Tony Lindgren <tony@...mide.com>
To:	Paul Gortmaker <paul.gortmaker@...driver.com>
Cc:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Russell King <linux@...linux.org.uk>,
	Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@...aro.org>,
	Alexandre Courbot <gnurou@...il.com>,
	linux-omap@...r.kernel.org, linux-gpio@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/3] ARM: mach-omap2: remove bogus "or_module" from
 rx51-peripherals

* Paul Gortmaker <paul.gortmaker@...driver.com> [160722 07:02]:
> [Re: [PATCH 1/3] ARM: mach-omap2: remove bogus "or_module" from rx51-peripherals] On 21/07/2016 (Thu 23:41) Tony Lindgren wrote:
> 
> > Hi,
> > 
> > * Paul Gortmaker <paul.gortmaker@...driver.com> [160719 21:17]:
> > > During unrelated work, attempting to remove an include of the
> > > linux/module.h in favour of "struct module;" in order to reduce
> > > header entanglement, we found doing so caused a build failure in
> > > this file.
> > 
> > We're planning to drop this file after v4.8-rc1 after I've
> > verified that legacy booting still works at v4.8-rc1.
> > 
> > Are you OK if I pick this patch into my omap-for-v4.8/legacy
> > branch? Or if you have a minimal immutable branch against v4.7-rc1
> > with just this patch I can merge it in no problem.
> 
> Is the legacy branch a contingency plan for the case where legacy
> booting doesn't work?  If so, that should be OK.

Well it's just a branch of omap legacy booting related patches
for v4.8. But looking at it now, looks like I already pushed out the
removal of the last two remaining board files before I took few weeks
off. But I did not add it to Linux next to keep things working
until -rc1.

> Having the patch present, or having the file deleted both take care of
> my concern -- which was was introducing build regressions when adding
> the gpio header cleanup into for-4.9 content.  

OK. As I've already pushed out the board-*.c removal branch, I
suggest we just drop the $subject patch to avoid a merge conflict.

Regards,

Tony