linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 1/5] OF: Clear detach flag on attach

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]

Message-Id: <99B265B8-F5D0-4138-BA1E-0F09C95A60F4@antoniou-consulting.com>
Date:	Wed, 6 Nov 2013 10:49:44 +0200
From:	Pantelis Antoniou <panto@...oniou-consulting.com>
To:	Alexander Sverdlin <alexander.sverdlin@....com>
Cc:	Gerhard Sittig <gsi@...x.de>,
	Grant Likely <grant.likely@...retlab.ca>,
	Rob Herring <robherring2@...il.com>,
	Stephen Warren <swarren@...dotorg.org>,
	Matt Porter <matt.porter@...aro.org>,
	Koen Kooi <koen@...inion.thruhere.net>,
	Alison Chaiken <Alison_Chaiken@...tor.com>,
	Dinh Nguyen <dinh.linux@...il.com>,
	Jan Lubbe <jluebbe@...net.de>, Michael Stickel <ms@...able.de>,
	Guenter Roeck <linux@...ck-us.net>,
	Dirk Behme <dirk.behme@...il.com>,
	Alan Tull <delicious.quinoa@...il.com>,
	Sascha Hauer <s.hauer@...gutronix.de>,
	Michael Bohan <mbohan@...eaurora.org>,
	Ionut Nicu <ioan.nicu.ext@....com>,
	Michal Simek <monstr@...str.eu>,
	Matt Ranostay <mranostay@...il.com>,
	devicetree@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/5] OF: Clear detach flag on attach

Hi Alexander,

I'm not exactly sure, but I think it is still needed.
Since at that point the tree is attached.

Grant?

Regards

-- Pantelis

On Nov 6, 2013, at 10:46 AM, Alexander Sverdlin wrote:

> Hello Pantelis,
> 
> On 05/11/13 21:03, ext Pantelis Antoniou wrote:
>> On Nov 5, 2013, at 9:43 PM, Gerhard Sittig wrote:
>>>> --- a/drivers/of/base.c
>>>> +++ b/drivers/of/base.c
>>>> @@ -1641,6 +1641,7 @@ int of_attach_node(struct device_node *np)
>>>> 	np->allnext = of_allnodes;
>>>> 	np->parent->child = np;
>>>> 	of_allnodes = np;
>>>> +	of_node_clear_flag(np, OF_DETACHED);
>>>> 	raw_spin_unlock_irqrestore(&devtree_lock, flags);
>>>> 
>>>> 	of_add_proc_dt_entry(np);
>>> 
>>> Does this add a call to a routine which only gets introduced in a
>>> subsequent patch (2/5)?  If so, it would break builds during the
>>> series, and thus would hinder bisection.
>>> 
>> 
>> You're right, I'll re-order on the next series.
> 
> Is it necessary at all now, after these fixes:
> 9e401275 of: fdt: fix memory initialization for expanded DT
> 0640332e of: Fix missing memory initialization on FDT unflattening
> 92d31610 of/fdt: Remove duplicate memory clearing on FDT unflattening
> 
> ?
> 
> -- 
> Best regards,
> Alexander Sverdlin.

--
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/