linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH-V2 1/3] RTC:s35390a: Add Alarm interrupt support

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:	Mon, 23 Aug 2010 09:29:57 +0300
From:	Felipe Balbi <felipe.balbi@...ia.com>
To:	"ext Hiremath, Vaibhav" <hvaibhav@...com>
Cc:	"Balbi Felipe (Nokia-MS/Helsinki)" <felipe.balbi@...ia.com>,
	"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	"akpm@...ux-foundation.org" <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	"byron.bbradley@...il.com" <byron.bbradley@...il.com>,
	"linux-omap@...r.kernel.org" <linux-omap@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH-V2 1/3] RTC:s35390a: Add Alarm interrupt support

Hi,

please break your lines at 80-characters. Also the [Hiremath, Vaibhav] 
is unnecessary.

On Mon, Aug 23, 2010 at 06:58:42AM +0200, ext Hiremath, Vaibhav wrote:
>> don't you need some locking on the irq handler ? a mutex maybe ? Just
>> wondering...
>>
>[Hiremath, Vaibhav] Yes definitely we do need locking here, I thought 
>of adding locking mechanism in subsequent patch, does it makes sense?

so you add a buggy patch and fix it later ? If you already know it's 
buggy, why not changing the patch that adds the bug ?

-- 
balbi

DefectiveByDesign.org
--
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/