linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] drm: vmwgfx: constify vmw_fence

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 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:   Wed, 30 Aug 2017 11:09:43 +0200
From:   Thomas Hellstrom <thellstrom@...are.com>
To:     Arvind Yadav <arvind.yadav.cs@...il.com>, airlied@...ux.ie,
        syeh@...are.com, linux-graphics-maintainer@...are.com,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, dri-devel@...ts.freedesktop.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] drm: vmwgfx: constify vmw_fence_ops

On 08/30/2017 10:30 AM, Daniel Vetter wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 30, 2017 at 08:21:46AM +0200, Thomas Hellstrom wrote:
>> On 08/30/2017 07:47 AM, Arvind Yadav wrote:
>>> vmw_fence_ops are not supposed to change at runtime. Functions
>>> "dma_fence_init" working with const vmw_fence_ops provided
>>> by <linux/dma-fence.h>. So mark the non-const structs as const.
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Arvind Yadav <arvind.yadav.cs@...il.com>
>>> ---
>>>    drivers/gpu/drm/vmwgfx/vmwgfx_fence.c | 2 +-
>>>    1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>>>
>>> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/vmwgfx/vmwgfx_fence.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/vmwgfx/vmwgfx_fence.c
>>> index b8bc5bc..abc5f03 100644
>>> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/vmwgfx/vmwgfx_fence.c
>>> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/vmwgfx/vmwgfx_fence.c
>>> @@ -225,7 +225,7 @@ static long vmw_fence_wait(struct dma_fence *f, bool intr, signed long timeout)
>>>    	return ret;
>>>    }
>>> -static struct dma_fence_ops vmw_fence_ops = {
>>> +static const struct dma_fence_ops vmw_fence_ops = {
>>>    	.get_driver_name = vmw_fence_get_driver_name,
>>>    	.get_timeline_name = vmw_fence_get_timeline_name,
>>>    	.enable_signaling = vmw_fence_enable_signaling,
>> Reviewed-by: Thomas Hellstrom <thellstrom@...are.com>
> Does this mean you'll merge it, or does this mean you'll expect someone
> else to merge this?
>
> I'm always confused when maintainers reply with an r-b/ack for a patch
> only touching their driver, and no further information at all.
> -Daniel

For patches only touching our driver, I'd say we're always responsible 
for sorting out how it's going to be merged.

Since Sinclair is maintaining the vmwgfx trees I thought I'd give him a 
chance to comment on how he wanted it merged.

/Thomas