linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 0/2] DS1374 Watchdog fixes

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: <CAJYdmePpHcYgjiCf=eWCkBBNBTTw4jW59_VNR6w44Yj_QDQqng@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Tue, 25 Apr 2017 12:58:36 -0700
From:   Moritz Fischer <mdf@...nel.org>
To:     Guenter Roeck <linux@...ck-us.net>
Cc:     Alexandre Belloni <alexandre.belloni@...e-electrons.com>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Moritz Fischer <moritz.fischer@...us.com>,
        linux-watchdog@...r.kernel.org, wim@...ana.be,
        a.zummo@...ertech.it, rtc-linux@...glegroups.com,
        alex.williams@...com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/2] DS1374 Watchdog fixes

On Tue, Apr 25, 2017 at 09:58:24AM -0700, Guenter Roeck wrote:

> Ah, I missed the "n" in various #ifndef statements.
>
> I can't really comment on how to solve that; I simply don't know.
> Also, even with a dt property, it still would be necessary to have
> a non-DT means to configure one or the other. Making whatever solution
> backward compatible also seems tricky; I don't have a solution for that
> problem either.

How does one do these things in a non-dt context? Platform data? I'd let
the MFD select the 'mode'. Maybe being backwards compatible isn't
possible in any case. Is there a rule somewhere that we guarantee you'll
never have to change your CONFIG_FOO options?

>
> > > > The idea was to fix what's broken currently (this patchset) and then refactor.
> > > > But if you prefer I can do all in one go instead.
> > > >
> > >
> > > It just seemed a waste to me to change/fix a function which is going to
> > > be removed in a subsequent patch (I seem to recall that there was a fix
> > > to the ioctl function).
> > >
> >
> > I'd say that it depends on whether you want to backport the fixes to the
> > stable kernels. Backporting the full rework is probably riskier.

I suck at communicating these days. But yeah. That was basically my
concern when I split it up into 'Fixes' and 'Rework'.

Mostly since the rework might take a couple of rounds of review, while the
fix can unbrick stuff (might still need review of course)

Cheers,

Moritz