linux-kernel - Re: [spi-devel-general] [PATCH 0/6] [Blackfin] SPI driver updates

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]

Message-Id: <200801311250.46415.david-b@pacbell.net>
Date:	Thu, 31 Jan 2008 12:50:46 -0800
From:	David Brownell <david-b@...bell.net>
To:	spi-devel-general@...ts.sourceforge.net
Cc:	Bryan Wu <bryan.wu@...log.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [spi-devel-general] [PATCH 0/6] [Blackfin] SPI driver updates

I've forwarded these to Andrew, with my signoff and updated comments.
You still need to work on having your patch descriptions match up
to what the patches actually do...

Patches 3-5 in this series seem to have a common thread:  waiting
until BIT_STAT_SPIF is set before moving to the next step of the
transfer.  Next time something similar happens, I'd rather see just
one patch addressing the issue on all code paths ... not three small
patches that only fix it for a few of the code paths.

Also, two of those three patches describe their updates as fixing
a "regression", or "reverting" the code.  Was this a bug that came
in those patches you wanted to merge to 2.6.24?  If so, shouldn't
those regression fixes go into the stable series?

- Dave

--
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/