linux-kernel - Re: [PATCHv9 1/4] EDAC, altera: Add Altera L2 Cache and OCRAM EDAC Support

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: <20160208161627.GH28980@pd.tnic>
Date:	Mon, 8 Feb 2016 17:16:27 +0100
From:	Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>
To:	Thor Thayer <tthayer@...nsource.altera.com>
Cc:	dougthompson@...ssion.com, m.chehab@...sung.com,
	robh+dt@...nel.org, pawel.moll@....com, mark.rutland@....com,
	ijc+devicetree@...lion.org.uk, galak@...eaurora.org,
	linux@....linux.org.uk, dinguyen@...nsource.altera.com,
	grant.likely@...aro.org, devicetree@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-doc@...r.kernel.org, linux-edac@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
	tthayer.linux@...il.com
Subject: Re: [PATCHv9 1/4] EDAC, altera: Add Altera L2 Cache and OCRAM EDAC
 Support

On Mon, Feb 08, 2016 at 10:10:53AM -0600, Thor Thayer wrote:
> Understood. I did get a conditional ACK from Rob Herring on the DT portion
> of the patch from the last revision (as long as I made the changes he
> suggested which I did in this patch). There may be other comments though.

Ah, and I wasn't precise: there are also arch/arm/mach-socfpga/ changes
which I'm going to take through the EDAC tree *only* if ARM people ack
them.

And by "ARM people" and from looking at get_maintainer output I mean
Dinh and he's on CC ...

> Those are the only cases of irq but it would be good to be alerted if that
> is not the case. I will add. Thanks!

Yeah, it is a "just in case" thing - it might just as well be too
cautious and completely unnecessary so your decision.

> Yes, thanks. I was using the xgene code as an example but I missed the
> unregister (although it looks like the xgene's unregister affects sysfs
> instead of debugfs). I'm also moving the debugfs creation to the end of the
> probe since it is not critical and avoids an error path if creation fails.
> 
> I'll make the debugfs_remove_recursive() change as a separate patch in my
> next version.

Good, thanks!

Also, if something's not right in drivers/edac/debugfs.c wrt usability
and so on, feel free to propose changes. I've extracted it there because
I didn't want every driver to reinvent the wheel.

Thanks.

-- 
Regards/Gruss,
    Boris.

ECO tip #101: Trim your mails when you reply.