[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20170926132134.6ekk44ezeehovppe@angmar>
Date: Tue, 26 Sep 2017 15:21:34 +0200
From: Felix Schnizlein <fschnizlein@...e.com>
To: Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>
Cc: Will Deacon <will.deacon@....com>, gregkh@...uxfoundation.org,
trenn@...e.com, catalin.marinas@....com, sfr@...b.auug.org.au,
linux@...linux.org.uk, linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, tglx@...utronix.de
Subject: Re: Unreviewed arm64 ABI change in linux-next via driver-core tree
On 26.09.17, Mark Rutland wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Tue, Sep 26, 2017 at 01:45:37PM +0100, Will Deacon wrote:
> > Hi Greg,
> >
> > We stumbled over a change in linux-next that has ABI implications for arm64
> > and, as far as we can tell, has not been reviewed:
> >
> > https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/next/linux-next.git/commit/arch/arm64/kernel?id=fb7ff3f8721b87bf078868c9a252fa0cf71a47c2
> >
> > ("fb7ff3f8721b cpuinfo: implement sysfs nodes for arm64")
>
> > Please can you drop this from your tree until we've had a chance to review
> > it properly? If Felix can repost it as above, then we can get the discussion
> > started because, aside from this email, we have concerns about exactly what
> > is being exposed to userspace here.
>
> Seconded.
>
> Experience with the existing /proc/cpuinfo shows that this needs *very*
> careful review.
>
> I've worked on arm64's /proc/cpuinfo, and I'd appreciate being Cc'd on
> future postings of this series. I'd also recommend that future postings
> are also Cc'd to linux-arch (and maybe linux-api) so that the interface
> is reviewed by a larger set of relevant parties.
I will do that!
>
> Thanks,
> Mark.
Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (489 bytes)
Powered by blists - more mailing lists