linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 0/2] ARM: sunxi: Convert DTSI to new CPU bindings

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:	Sat, 29 Jun 2013 16:20:38 -0700
From:	Olof Johansson <olof@...om.net>
To:	Russell King - ARM Linux <linux@....linux.org.uk>
Cc:	Maxime Ripard <maxime.ripard@...e-electrons.com>,
	Lorenzo Pieralisi <lorenzo.pieralisi@....com>,
	Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>,
	"linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org" 
	<linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
	"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Emilio Lopez <emilio@...pez.com.ar>,
	torvalds@...ux-foundation.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/2] ARM: sunxi: Convert DTSI to new CPU bindings

On Sun, Jun 30, 2013 at 12:14:26AM +0100, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
> On Sat, Jun 29, 2013 at 03:54:26PM -0700, Olof Johansson wrote:
> > Most of this ruffle seems to be about the fact that booting a kernel
> > with a device tree that doesn't conform to the brand spanking new,
> > and never previously enforced, binding for the cpu nodes will produce
> > a WARN_ON(). Lots of our in-tree device trees fall into this category.
> > 
> > And while I think it was a bad idea for Lorenzo to ask for this to be
> > merged as a fix this late (and most in particular for stable), as far
> > as I can tell nothing (new) is broken by it -- just the alarming warning
> > is being printed.
> > 
> > I think it probably makes sense to downgrade the WARN to just a printk, and
> > people will be a lot less worried. How about the below?
> > 
> > If you're OK with it, Russell, can we get your ack so Linus can apply
> > directly given the imminence of final 3.10? Or, if you prefer, you can of
> > course apply and send it on instead.
> 
> You can have my usual rmk+kernel ack for it with one change...
> 
> > +	if (!bootcpu_valid) {
> > +		pr_warn("DT missing boot CPU MPIDR[23:0], fall back to "
> > +			"default cpu_logical_map\n");
> 
> Don't wrap messages kernel messages inspite of what checkpatch says.
> Always keep messages like that on a single line so they're greppable.
> Checkpatch is far from perfect and does get stuff wrong, and this is
> one of its common mistakes.

I didn't even run it through checkpatch, and I prefer greppable strings too --
I just went with what the rest of the file already used in this case to keep
the change minimal given timing.

I'll send a fresh copy with your ack and the above changed. Thanks.


-Olof

--
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/