linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 0/3] ATA/ARM: convert ARM/DaVinci to use libata PATA drivers

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, 16 Mar 2017 17:32:55 -0400
From:   Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
To:     Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz <b.zolnierkie@...sung.com>
Cc:     Sekhar Nori <nsekhar@...com>,
        Sergei Shtylyov <sergei.shtylyov@...entembedded.com>,
        Kevin Hilman <khilman@...libre.com>,
        Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>,
        Russell King <linux@....linux.org.uk>,
        Dmitry Eremin-Solenikov <dbaryshkov@...il.com>,
        linux-ide@...r.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 0/3] ATA/ARM: convert ARM/DaVinci to use libata PATA
 drivers

On Tue, Mar 14, 2017 at 05:36:51PM +0100, Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> This patchset adds Palmchip BK3710 IDE controller driver to
> libata and switches ARM/DaVinci to use it (instead of the old
> IDE driver).
> 
> Sekhar, please check that it still works after changes, thanks.
> 
> Changes since v1
> (https://www.spinics.net/lists/arm-kernel/msg567442.html):
> - addressed review comments from Sergei Shtylyov
> - fixed cycle_time unitialized variable issue
> 
> Changes since v0.1 draft patch version
> (https://www.spinics.net/lists/arm-kernel/msg566932.html):
> - fixed cycle_time build warning
> - added platform support fixes from Sekhar
> - added defconfig changes from Sekhar
> - preserved platform support for the old IDE driver
> - split it on 3 patches

Looks fine to me from libata side.  Once it gets tested, how should
the patches be routed?  I don't think it'd make sense to route them
separately.

Thanks.

-- 
tejun