linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 0/4] serial: fsl_lpuart: fix various DMA related issues

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]

Message-ID: <20150109223401.GA15118@kroah.com>
Date:	Fri, 9 Jan 2015 14:34:01 -0800
From:	Greg KH <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
To:	Stefan Agner <stefan@...er.ch>
Cc:	jslaby@...e.cz, jingchang.lu@...escale.com, shawn.guo@...aro.org,
	linux-serial@...r.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/4] serial: fsl_lpuart: fix various DMA related issues

On Fri, Jan 09, 2015 at 11:19:50PM +0100, Stefan Agner wrote:
> On 2015-01-09 23:14, Greg KH wrote:
> > On Fri, Dec 12, 2014 at 05:19:02PM +0100, Stefan Agner wrote:
> >> On 2014-12-12 15:32, Greg KH wrote:
> >> > On Fri, Dec 12, 2014 at 02:44:06PM +0100, Stefan Agner wrote:
> >> >> Any thoughts on this patchset? Would have hopped that it makes it into
> >> >> 3.19 as those are mostly fixes.
> >> >
> >> > "mostly"?
> >> >
> >>
> >> Well, all of them fix a bug, but PATCH 2/4 does this by also moving DMA
> >> allocation to probe. I would really have to split up that patch and make
> >> two incremental steps (split-up of RX/TX DMA allocation to make each
> >> single action revert-able and move to probe). But this would lead to
> >> more changed lines in total. The patchset as is already somewhat tested
> >> since we use it in our 3.18 BSP, whereas a new set would not be tested.
> >>
> >> One could also argument, it only affects fsl_lpuart (UART in rather not
> >> very widespread SoC's Freescale Vybrid and LS1021a).
> >>
> >>
> >> > I'll get to these after 3.19-rc1 is out, but it really looks like these
> >> > will be for 3.20-rc1, unless you break them up into "bugfix only" type
> >> > patches.
> >>
> >>
> >> PATCH 1/4 fixes a bug which happens on a normal console rather often on
> >> my setup. So if you decide that patchset is for 3.20-rc1, that one would
> >> be nice to have in 3.19 as well...
> > 
> > Please redo this patchset then, makeing it obvious that some are fixes,
> > and need to go for 3.19 and others are ok for 3.20.  As it is, the
> > changelog entries do not look like anything here is for 3.19, sorry.
> > 
> 
> Ok, will create a patchset with 1 and 3 for 3.19 (since this two really
> lead to reproducible kernel traces), and the rest for 3.20. Do you
> prefer to have the patches in a single patchset (with 3 moved to 2) or
> should I create two patchsets?

What would you want if you were in my shoes and had to maintain two
different branches?

(hint, two different patchsets...)

greg k-h
--
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/