linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 0/8] i2c mux cleanup and locking update

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]

Message-ID: <CAKv63uvvdjmQj3J73UJZFLJ=U0c+Z=dmknm3UH=3MvYU0oqNNg@mail.gmail.com>
Date:	Wed, 6 Jan 2016 14:23:02 +0100
From:	Crt Mori <cmo@...exis.com>
To:	Wolfram Sang <wsa@...-dreams.de>
Cc:	Peter Rosin <peda@...ator.liu.se>, Peter Rosin <peda@...ntia.se>,
	Rob Herring <robh+dt@...nel.org>,
	Pawel Moll <pawel.moll@....com>,
	Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>,
	Ian Campbell <ijc+devicetree@...lion.org.uk>,
	Kumar Gala <galak@...eaurora.org>,
	Peter Korsgaard <peter.korsgaard@...co.com>,
	Guenter Roeck <linux@...ck-us.net>,
	Jonathan Cameron <jic23@...nel.org>,
	Hartmut Knaack <knaack.h@....de>,
	Lars-Peter Clausen <lars@...afoo.de>,
	Peter Meerwald <pmeerw@...erw.net>,
	Antti Palosaari <crope@....fi>,
	Mauro Carvalho Chehab <mchehab@....samsung.com>,
	Frank Rowand <frowand.list@...il.com>,
	Grant Likely <grant.likely@...aro.org>,
	Adriana Reus <adriana.reus@...el.com>,
	Srinivas Pandruvada <srinivas.pandruvada@...ux.intel.com>,
	Krzysztof Kozlowski <k.kozlowski@...sung.com>,
	Hans Verkuil <hans.verkuil@...co.com>,
	Nicholas Mc Guire <hofrat@...dl.org>,
	Olli Salonen <olli.salonen@....fi>, linux-i2c@...r.kernel.org,
	devicetree@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-iio@...r.kernel.org, linux-media@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 0/8] i2c mux cleanup and locking update

Hi Wolfram and Peter,
I will give my opinion about the path chosen although it should be
taken lightly.

I can see that hardware guys missed the software guys again on the
development path, but since this happens more often than not, I would
say it seems OK to have support for this as long as it does not make
more complex (longer) standard i2c transfers. I would support to have
additional mutex before mux as that will make less chance that someone
forgets to lock mutex before mux and proposed solution seems valid.

Regards,
Crt

On 5 January 2016 at 19:48, Wolfram Sang <wsa@...-dreams.de> wrote:
> Peter,
>
>> PS. needs a bunch of testing, I do not have access to all the involved hw
>
> First of all, thanks for diving into this topic and the huge effort you
> apparently have put into it.
>
> It is obviously a quite intrusive series, so it needs careful review.
> TBH, I can't really tell when I have the bandwidth to do that, so I hope
> other people will step up. And yes, it needs serious testing.
>
> To all: Although I appreciate any review support, I'd think the first
> thing to be done should be a very high level review - is this series
> worth the huge update? Is the path chosen proper? Stuff like this. I'd
> appreciate Acks or Revs for that. Stuff like fixing checkpatch warnings
> and other minor stuff should come later.
>
> Thanks,
>
>    Wolfram
>
--
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/