linux-kernel - Re: [GIT PULL] pin control bulk changes for v3.13

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:	Mon, 11 Nov 2013 11:23:06 +0100
From:	Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@...aro.org>
To:	Vineet Gupta <Vineet.Gupta1@...opsys.com>
Cc:	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
	"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	"christian.ruppert@...lis.com" <christian.ruppert@...lis.com>,
	"devicetree@...r.kernel.org" <devicetree@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [GIT PULL] pin control bulk changes for v3.13

On Mon, Nov 11, 2013 at 11:00 AM, Vineet Gupta
<Vineet.Gupta1@...opsys.com> wrote:
> On 11/11/2013 03:03 PM, Linus Walleij wrote:

>> Actually I think device tree changes - if you mean changes to this platform's
>> DTS/DTSI files, should go through the ARC arch tree.
>
> But current workflow is prone to broken bisectability - arch maintainers need to
> make sure that the core/driver changes hit mainline before the actual dts/dtsi
> files in arch/*

No. This is *not* a bisectability problem, as it has been established
that device trees and kernel code shall *not* be built and deployed
together.

Consider:

- Just subsystem changes are merged: OK you can still take your
  DTS from somewhere and boot this kernel with it.

- Just the arch/*/*.dts[i] changes are merged: OK these new DT
  nodes remain unused, presumably the system survives anyway?

It only becomes a problem if you also start to apply patches deleting
functionality that has been moved over to the device tree in the same
merge window - don't do that. Take a sweep with the broomstick
next time instead.

>> As the idea is to eventually move the DTS stuff out of the kernel we should
>> not try to couple these into the subsystem trees.
>
> IMHO putting the 2 parts in a patch series and routing via the same subsys tree
> will not really couple them. I fail to see how u would use the commits in driver/*
> (or not use the commits in arch/*) to do the proposed seperation of future.

I don't understand this. First you say it is prone to broken bisectability,
then you say it is not coupled? Isn't this the same thing?

Yours,
Linus Walleij
--
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/