linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 9/9] clocksource: import ARC timer driver

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: <f73c498d-d2f4-2fc8-49ec-9fbf5c5c96b7@synopsys.com>
Date:   Thu, 3 Nov 2016 10:57:48 -0700
From:   Vineet Gupta <Vineet.Gupta1@...opsys.com>
To:     Daniel Lezcano <daniel.lezcano@...aro.org>
CC:     <tglx@...utronix.de>, <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        <linux-snps-arc@...ts.infradead.org>,
        Noam Camus <noamca@...lanox.com>, <Alexey.Brodkin@...opsys.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 9/9] clocksource: import ARC timer driver

Hi Daniel,

On 11/03/2016 09:50 AM, Daniel Lezcano wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 03, 2016 at 09:40:23AM -0700, Vineet Gupta wrote:
>> On 11/01/2016 06:03 PM, Vineet Gupta wrote:
>>>>> Because of the git mv you, diff didn't include bulk of driver code which would
>>>>>>> make for bulk of review anyways. So perhaps in v2 I don't do the git mv. OK ?
>>>>>
>>>>> That means I will review and comment existing code. It is not a problem for me
>>>>> if you agree to do the changes.
>>> Sure, the whole point is to make things better as an outcome of review. I have no
>>> issues changing code provided we don't add major performance regressions.
>>
>> So just wondering if I could have some comments on the initial import of driver
>> before I send out a v2.
> 
> Yeah, ok. Let me comment the other patches of the series and then you can send a V2.

Thx for taking a quick look - this is a good start. How about the actual driver
itself, do you want to take a quick look there as well before v2 ?

>  
>> The issue is git mv didn't show bulk of code being moved. Shall I send a v2 with a
>> different ordering so I introduce the driver first, with new headers, new Kconfig
>> items etc and then as a subsequent patch prune those bits from arch/arc/* ?