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, 19 Dec 2012 10:28:35 +0000
From:	Mark Brown <broonie@...nsource.wolfsonmicro.com>
To:	Luciano Coelho <coelho@...com>
Cc:	Felipe Balbi <balbi@...com>, svenkatr@...com,
	linux-omap@...r.kernel.org, linux-mmc@...r.kernel.org,
	cjb@...top.org, lrg@...com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	Peter Ujfalusi <peter.ujfalusi@...com>,
	Tony Lindgren <tony@...mide.com>
Subject: Re: 32kHz clock removal causes problems omap_hsmmc

On Wed, Dec 19, 2012 at 12:01:57PM +0200, Luciano Coelho wrote:

> I think one of the reasons not many people use the mainline with TWL is
> exactly because something seems to break on every new kernel release.
> I'm one of those who care and report things when I see them.

Well, it's a recursive thing - nobody works on mainline, nobody reviews
mainline code and therefore you shouldn't be surprised if there's
issues.

> I think saying that it is not important because only one person reported
> it is not a good excuse.  I would at least have liked seeing an answer
> saying, "this can't be fixed because of this and that" or "can you try
> to fix it by doing this or that".

That's not what I'm saying.  What I'm saying is that it's clearly not
the case that OMAP is completely broken here or anything, it appears to
be one particular system which it appears vanishingly few people cared
about in mainline even before all the stuff with TI recently.

Looking at your report the reason I didn't reply myself is most likely
to be a combination of my expectation that someone from TI would look at
OMAP problems (at the time there were hundreds of people working on
OMAP) and the lack of detail in your mail - the bisection report was a
bit unclear as you said that you'd reverted the patch "plus a couple of
associated patches" without saying what exactly you'd backed out and
there was no analysis of the problem to engage with.

Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (837 bytes)

Powered by blists - more mailing lists