linux-kernel - Re: [2.6.22 patch] iop: combined watchdog timer driver for iop3xx and iop13xx

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:	Sun, 6 May 2007 22:18:48 +0200
From:	Lennert Buytenhek <buytenh@...tstofly.org>
To:	Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@...il.com>
Cc:	Wim Van Sebroeck <wim@...ana.be>,
	"Curt E. Bruns" <curt.e.bruns@...el.com>,
	Peter Milne <peter.milne@...acq.com>,
	Russell King <rmk@....linux.org.uk>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [2.6.22 patch] iop: combined watchdog timer driver for iop3xx and iop13xx

On Sun, May 06, 2007 at 01:13:58PM -0700, Dan Williams wrote:

> >> Here is a new watchdog driver for your review.  It supports two flavors
> >> of the iop watchdog timer.  The iop13xx watchdog can be stopped while
> >> the iop3xx version cannot.
> >
> >I started reviewing this patch yesterday. First thing I noticed was that
> >you seem to be moving some code from include/asm-arm/arch-iop13xx/system.h
> >to include/asm-arm/arch-iop13xx/iop13xx.h .
> >This should not be part of this patch since it is touching architecture
> >dependant code for which I do not have enough knowledge about this specific
> >architecture to tell if this is indeed the correct way to do this.
> >The maintainers of this architecture should imho comment on this.
> >Could you split this patch into 2 patches: one that deals with the moving 
> >of
> >the architecture dependant code (and explaining why) and one with the new
> >watchdog drivers? I will continue my review today.
> 
> I am one of the maintainers of this architecture, (Lennert Buytenhek
> is the other).

Dan has done more work on iop13xx than I have, and I'm OK with his
changes.

It's true that ARM-specific changes generally should go through the ARM
tree, but IMHO sometimes it makes sense to have one patch touch both
stuff under drivers/ and stuff under arch/arm/mach-foo, especially if
the changes are dependent and cause compile breakage if applied
separately.  Not sure whether that's the case here.
-
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/