linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 0/8] Pad retentions support for Exynos5433

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]

Date:   Thu, 26 Jan 2017 16:47:03 +0100
From:   Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@...aro.org>
To:     Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk@...nel.org>
Cc:     Marek Szyprowski <m.szyprowski@...sung.com>,
        "linux-gpio@...r.kernel.org" <linux-gpio@...r.kernel.org>,
        "linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org" 
        <linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
        linux-samsung-soc <linux-samsung-soc@...r.kernel.org>,
        "devicetree@...r.kernel.org" <devicetree@...r.kernel.org>,
        "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Sylwester Nawrocki <s.nawrocki@...sung.com>,
        Tomasz Figa <tomasz.figa@...il.com>,
        Lee Jones <lee.jones@...aro.org>,
        Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz <b.zolnierkie@...sung.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 0/8] Pad retentions support for Exynos5433

On Thu, Jan 26, 2017 at 3:32 PM, Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk@...nel.org> wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 26, 2017 at 11:50 AM, Linus Walleij
> <linus.walleij@...aro.org> wrote:
>> On Thu, Jan 26, 2017 at 9:33 AM, Marek Szyprowski
>> <m.szyprowski@...sung.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Patches in this patchset depends on each other. They are order in such a
>>> way to make the changes bisectable.
>>>
>>> Patch #3 has runtime dependency on #1.
>>> Patch #5 has runtime dependency on #3.
>>> Patch #6 has runtime dependency on #4.
>>>
>>> This patchset also directly depends on the "Move pad retention control to
>>> Exynos pin controller driver" patchset:
>>> https://www.spinics.net/lists/arm-kernel/msg556074.html
>>
>> Do we *have* to merge it runtime-bisectably?
>>
>> I'm asking because we need a huge immutable branch
>> (I guess in the MFD subsystem) to deal with that.
>
> It helps a lot with finding introduced issues, so I think yes - we
> want it runtime-bisectable. The board has already support in mainline
> so it is not theoretical runtime...

OK I just wait for an immutable branch to pull for this to work
out then.

Yours,
Linus Walleij