linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v11 0/2] Add support for the Allwinner A31 DMA Controller

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:	Thu, 24 Jul 2014 16:44:20 -0700
From:	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
To:	Maxime Ripard <maxime.ripard@...e-electrons.com>
Cc:	Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@...el.com>,
	Vinod Koul <vinod.koul@...el.com>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
	linux-sunxi@...glegroups.com, kevin.z.m.zh@...il.com,
	sunny@...winnertech.com, shuge@...winnertech.com,
	zhuzhenhua@...winnertech.com, Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>,
	andriy.shevchenko@...el.com, dmaengine@...r.kernel.org,
	Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v11 0/2] Add support for the Allwinner A31 DMA
 Controller

On Thu, 24 Jul 2014 14:13:15 +0200 Maxime Ripard <maxime.ripard@...e-electrons.com> wrote:

> On Thu, Jul 17, 2014 at 09:46:14PM +0200, Maxime Ripard wrote:
> > Hi,
> > 
> > This patchset adds support for the DMA controller found in the
> > Allwinner A31 and A23 SoCs.
> > 
> > This has been tested using the newly introduced SPI driver on an A31
> > EVK. Support for DMA-driven SPI transfers will be the subject of
> > another patch serie.
> > 
> > This has been around for around 5 monthes now, and didn't get any
> > review but nitpicks for three versions, so I feel like it could be
> > merged quite quickly.
> 
> Ok, so, who should I bribe to get this merged?

Turns out I'm easily bribed.  The code looks pretty clean and simple
and is refreshingly free of comments, which only confuse people anyway.

I think we could do this as a single patch - is there any benefit to
splitting it apart like this?

The combinations of spin_lock()/spin_lock_irq() and spin_lock_irqsave()
are a bit scary - it's easy to get these optimisations wrong.  Has it
been thoroughly tested with lockdep enabled?
--
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/