linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 0/3] crypto: picoxcell

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: <5cbfeb40-f3c3-8473-24af-f302e3c6f02b@osg.samsung.com>
Date:   Mon, 2 Jan 2017 14:49:57 -0300
From:   Javier Martinez Canillas <javier@....samsung.com>
To:     Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>
Cc:     linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Jamie Iles <jamie@...ieiles.com>,
        "David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
        linux-crypto@...r.kernel.org,
        Herbert Xu <herbert@...dor.apana.org.au>,
        linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/3] crypto: picoxcell - Cleanups removing non-DT code

Hello Arnd,

On 01/02/2017 02:10 PM, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> On Monday, January 2, 2017 2:06:56 PM CET Javier Martinez Canillas wrote:
>>
>> This small series contains a couple of cleanups that removes some driver's code
>> that isn't needed due the driver being for a DT-only platform.
>>
>> The changes were suggested by Arnd Bergmann as a response to a previous patch:
>> https://lkml.org/lkml/2017/1/2/342
>>
>> Patch #1 allows the driver to be built when the COMPILE_TEST option is enabled.
>> Patch #2 removes the platform ID table since isn't needed for DT-only drivers.
>> Patch #3 removes a wrapper function that's also not needed if driver is DT-only.
>>
>>
> 
> Looks good, but I don't know if the first patch causes some build warnings

Thanks for looking at the patches.

> on non-ARM platforms, better wait at least for the 0-day build results,
> and maybe build-test on x86-32 and x86-64.
> 

I should had mentioned that I built tested for arm, arm64, x86-32 and x86-64,
and saw now issues. But I agree with you that it's better to wait for the
0-day builder in case it reports issues on some platforms.

> 	Arnd
> 

Best regards,
-- 
Javier Martinez Canillas
Open Source Group
Samsung Research America