linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v4] irqchip: gic: Allow gic_arch

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:	Sun, 17 Aug 2014 21:25:12 -0400
From:	Jason Cooper <jason@...edaemon.net>
To:	Nicolas Pitre <nicolas.pitre@...aro.org>
Cc:	Russell King - ARM Linux <linux@....linux.org.uk>,
	Stephen Boyd <sboyd@...eaurora.org>,
	linux-arm-msm@...r.kernel.org,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4] irqchip: gic: Allow gic_arch_extn hooks to call
 into scheduler

On Sun, Aug 17, 2014 at 08:04:45PM -0400, Nicolas Pitre wrote:
> On Sun, 17 Aug 2014, Jason Cooper wrote:
> > On Sun, Aug 17, 2014 at 07:55:23PM +0100, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
> > > On Sun, Aug 17, 2014 at 01:32:36PM -0400, Jason Cooper wrote:
> > > > Applied to irqchip/urgent with Nico's Ack.
> > > 
> > > Interesting, so I'm discussing this patch, and it gets applied anyway...
> > > yes, that's great.
> > 
> > Quoting Nico:
> > 
> > "Of course it would be good to clarify things wrt Russell's remark
> > independently from this patch."
> > 
> > I took 'independently' to mean "This patch is ok, *and* we need to
> > address Russell's concerns in a follow-up patch."
> > 
> > Nico's Reviewed-by with that comment was sent August 13th.  The most
> > recent activity on this thread was also August 13th.  After four days, I
> > reasoned there were no objections to his comment.
> 
> Well... I mentioned this patch is a nice cleanup independently of the 
> reason why it was created in the first place.

Ah, fair enough.

> Maybe that shouldn't be sorted as "urgent" in that case, especially
> when the code having problem with the current state of things is
> living out of mainline.

hmmm, yes.  I've been grappling with the semantics of '/urgent' vice
'/fixes'.  With mvebu, /fixes is the branch for all changes needing to go
into the current -rcX cycle.  For irqchip, Thomas suggested /urgent for
the equivalent branch.  To me, they serve the same purpose.
Unfortunately, I occasionally hear "Well, it's not _urgent_ ...".  I
suppose I'll put up with it for one more cycle and then change it to
/fixes. :)

wrt this patch, I need to drop it anyway.  I was a bit rusty (it's been
a few weeks) and forgot to add the Cc -stable and Fixes: tags.  I do
agree, though, it's certainly not urgent.

As Russell has raised more issues with this patch as well, I'll hold off
on re-applying until I see a new version.  Hopefully it'll meet with
everyones approval.

thx,

Jason.
--
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/