linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 1/2] Revert "drivers/rtc/rtc-pxa.c: fix set time sync time issue"

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <877gj8i01r.fsf@free.fr>
Date:	Thu, 09 May 2013 18:35:12 +0200
From:	Robert Jarzmik <robert.jarzmik@...e.fr>
To:	Chao Xie <chao.xie@...vell.com>
Cc:	<haojian.zhuang@...il.com>, <xiechao.mail@...il.com>,
	<linux@....linux.org.uk>, <a.zummo@...ertech.it>,
	<rtc-linux@...glegroups.com>, <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	<linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
	<akpm@...ux-foundation.org>, <liangs@...vell.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] Revert "drivers/rtc/rtc-pxa.c: fix set time sync time issue"

Chao Xie <chao.xie@...vell.com> writes:

> This patch have something wrong.
> 1.The pxa_sync_time API is not needed. The RTC sync can be done
> by user space applications, so in kernel this API is not needed.
> 2.The pxa_rtc_open can not be deleted. This change has been
> declined during review at the mail list
> 3.Based on specification and talked with owner of driver, it
> does not matter to set WOM and DOW.
>
> Only need to keep PSBR control for pxa95x
>
> This reverts commit 57489fabb7f3fc02483df2125fdbfb8b1bb1fcd8.

This commit doesn't exist in Linus's tree. Maybe in linux-next ?

Anyway, as you are reverting, please consider this :
the commit that exists is : c4243de70f7d536d95196b8a31539298bb15238c
"drivers/rtc/rtc-pxa.c: drivers/rtc/rtc-pxa.c: fix alarm not match issue".

This commit should be reverted :
 - because it's wrong :
   > tm->tm_wday = ((rycr & RDxR_DOW_MASK) >> RDxR_DOW_S) - 1;
   See how RYCR is used with a RDCR mask ...

 - because as maintainer I have already nacked this kind of patch :
   https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/1819851/
   The reasons given here are still valid AFAIK.

I'm pretty sure I didn't receive this patch in my mailbox. After I refused
ChaoXie first patch, the second "same approach" patch from Liangs was sent in my
back. I don't understand how that could happen ...

Liangs, please make sure to add me to the reviewers next time ?

Cheers.

--
Robert
--
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/