linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v5 0/2] watchdog: bcm281xx: Watchdog Driver

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]

Date:	Mon, 13 Jan 2014 22:02:11 +0100
From:	Wim Van Sebroeck <wim@...ana.be>
To:	Markus Mayer <markus.mayer@...aro.org>
Cc:	Guenter Roeck <linux@...ck-us.net>,
	Christian Daudt <bcm@...thebug.org>,
	Linaro Patches <patches@...aro.org>,
	Matt Porter <matt.porter@...aro.org>,
	One Thousand Gnomes <gnomes@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk>,
	Linux Watchdog List <linux-watchdog@...r.kernel.org>,
	ARM Kernel List <linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 0/2] watchdog: bcm281xx: Watchdog Driver

Hi Markus,

> Now I have a question (or rather a comment) of my own. I noticed that
> you "squashed" my two original patches into a single patch before
> breaking out the debugfs related code. The side-effect of this was
> that two lines of my bcm_defconfig change (CONFIG_WATCHDOG=y and
> CONFIG_BCM_KONA_WDT=y) were included in the patch you took into
> linux-watchdog-next.
> 
> If I understand correctly (and this is why I had broken out the
> bcm_defconfig change into a separate patch), a defconfig change would
> normally go through the platform maintainer's tree, in this case
> Christian, whereas the actual driver would go upstream through your
> tree.
> 
> I don't think it makes too much of a difference with regards to this
> driver where the defconfig change goes. In fact, taking it all through
> one tree might even be slightly easier and reduce the chance of
> conflicts, but I still think Christian needs to at least be aware of
> this change going through the watchdog tree. He owns bcm_defconfig,
> after all.

If it is an existing driver then it makes sense to go through the platform
maintainer's tree. If it is a new driver then I prefer to keep it as one
patch. Suppose the defconfig stuff get's in via the platform tree and I
don't sent the watchdog driver; would be an annoying situation in my opinion...
So that's why I prefer it as a single patch.

Kind regards,
Wim.

--
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/