linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2] x86/platform/intel-mid: Revert "Make 'bt_sfi

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: <1515172696.7000.754.camel@linux.intel.com>
Date:   Fri, 05 Jan 2018 19:18:16 +0200
From:   Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com>
To:     Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
        Fengguang Wu <fengguang.wu@...el.com>
Cc:     Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
        "H . Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>, x86@...nel.org,
        Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        Darren Hart <dvhart@...radead.org>,
        platform-driver-x86@...r.kernel.org,
        Bhumika Goyal <bhumirks@...il.com>, julia.lawall@...6.fr
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] x86/platform/intel-mid: Revert "Make 'bt_sfi_data'
 const"

On Thu, 2017-12-28 at 13:34 +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> * Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com> wrote:
> 
> > v2: low the tone of accusation that this made a regression
> 
> BTW., don't worry about that aspect too much: after a long debugging
> session it's 
> pretty natural to be upset at whoever introduced a regression.

It appears that regression has been introduced by a new dependency to
the hci_bcm.c.

In any case, can we apply this one to 4.15 cycle to make others prevent
do an actual regressions further:

commit 03838ae1e8f692dd2bdbd49820ed668d4b7bfbc2
Author: Andi Kleen <ak@...ux.intel.com>
Date:   Fri Jan 5 13:26:44 2018 +1100

    arch/x86/platform/intel-mid/device_libs/platform_bt.c: fix const
confusion

> 
> ( In fact a number of times I too got upset at the moron who wrote a
> particular 
>   piece of buggy code, only for 'git annotate' to remind me that the
> moron was me. )
> 
> I personally just ignore the emotional attributes, and I usually edit
> changelogs 
> accordingly as well so the temporary state of mind of finding a
> regression doesn't 
> trickle upstream.
> 
> Plus in this particular case if we can help type propagation for
> driver data to 
> become a bit cleaner then the kernel project has gained a bit through
> all this 
> pain.

I has been thinking if 0day can complain about these:
1) castings in new code
2) applying const to older *working* code

Fengguang, what do you think?

-- 
Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com>
Intel Finland Oy