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:	Wed, 06 Jul 2011 13:39:35 +0100
From:	Marc Zyngier <marc.zyngier@....com>
To:	"vkuzmichev@...sta.com" <vkuzmichev@...sta.com>
CC:	"linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org" 
	<linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
	"linux-watchdog@...r.kernel.org" <linux-watchdog@...r.kernel.org>,
	Russell King <linux@....linux.org.uk>,
	Wim Van Sebroeck <wim@...ana.be>,
	"arm@...nel.org" <arm@...nel.org>,
	"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>,
	John Stultz <johnstul@...ibm.com>,
	Nicolas Pitre <nico@...xnic.net>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH V2 0/6] arm_smp_twd: mpcore_wdt: Fix MPCORE watchdog setup

On 06/07/11 13:27, Vitaly Kuzmichev wrote:
> Hi Marc,
> 
> On 07/06/2011 02:05 PM, Marc Zyngier wrote:
> [...]
>>> The series of patches is based on arm-platforms.git/local_timers_as_devices
>>> branch since it looks like that it is going to be merged into the mainline.
>>
>> Be careful here. This branch is a work in progress, likely to change
>> very quickly, contains code that has not been posted to the ML yet, and
>> will probably eat your pet for breakfast. As far as mainline merging is
>> concerned, there is still a long way to go (see the GIC consolidation
>> patches, on which the local_timers_as_devices branch relies).
> 
> I understand.
> When do you plan to finish this job?
> Would not it be better to prepare two sets of patches: first one for
> linux-2.6/master with exported function, second for arm-platforms.git
> with removing exported function and replacing use of it by
> clk_get_rate(smp_twd) call?
> Is there a chance in this case, that my patches will be merged much
> earlier than yours?

Your guess is as good as mine. It all depends on people's bandwidth to
review long series of patches (the particular branch you used is a merge
of 3 different series), so I'd expect a smaller, less intrusive series
to make it quicker than my monster patch sets... ;-)

> If not, I will just rework patch 2/6 to remove exported and use only
> clock interface.

Make sure all TWD users are updated with the new clock before you merge
it then, or people are going to be surprised.

	M.
-- 
Jazz is not dead. It just smells funny...

--
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/

Powered by blists - more mailing lists