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  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, 8 Aug 2018 18:52:04 +0200
From:   Bartosz Golaszewski <brgl@...ev.pl>
To:     Andrew Lunn <andrew@...n.ch>
Cc:     Bartosz Golaszewski <bgolaszewski@...libre.com>,
        Wolfram Sang <wsa@...-dreams.de>,
        Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>, Sekhar Nori <nsekhar@...com>,
        Kevin Hilman <khilman@...nel.org>,
        Russell King <linux@...linux.org.uk>,
        Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>,
        Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
        David Woodhouse <dwmw2@...radead.org>,
        Brian Norris <computersforpeace@...il.com>,
        Boris Brezillon <boris.brezillon@...tlin.com>,
        Marek Vasut <marek.vasut@...il.com>,
        Richard Weinberger <richard@....at>,
        Grygorii Strashko <grygorii.strashko@...com>,
        "David S . Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
        Srinivas Kandagatla <srinivas.kandagatla@...aro.org>,
        Naren <naren.kernel@...il.com>,
        Mauro Carvalho Chehab <mchehab+samsung@...nel.org>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Lukas Wunner <lukas@...ner.de>,
        Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@...cle.com>,
        Florian Fainelli <f.fainelli@...il.com>,
        Ivan Khoronzhuk <ivan.khoronzhuk@...aro.org>,
        Sven Van Asbroeck <svendev@...x.com>,
        Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com>, Alban Bedel <albeu@...e.fr>,
        Rob Herring <robh@...nel.org>,
        David Lechner <david@...hnology.com>,
        linux-doc <linux-doc@...r.kernel.org>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        arm-soc <linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
        linux-i2c <linux-i2c@...r.kernel.org>,
        linux-mtd@...ts.infradead.org,
        Linux-OMAP <linux-omap@...r.kernel.org>, netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 00/28] at24: remove at24_platform_data

2018-08-08 18:44 GMT+02:00 Andrew Lunn <andrew@...n.ch>:
> On Wed, Aug 08, 2018 at 06:27:25PM +0200, Bartosz Golaszewski wrote:
>> 2018-08-08 17:55 GMT+02:00 Wolfram Sang <wsa@...-dreams.de>:
>> > On Wed, Aug 08, 2018 at 05:31:22PM +0200, Bartosz Golaszewski wrote:
>> >> From: Bartosz Golaszewski <bgolaszewski@...libre.com>
>> >>
>> >> This is a follow-up to the previously rejected series[1] which partially
>> >> removed the at24_platform_data structure. After further development and
>> >> taking reviews into account, this series finally removes that struct
>> >> completely but not without touching many different parts of the code
>> >> base.
>> >>
>> >> Since I took over maintainership of the at24 driver I've been working
>> >> towards removing at24_platform_data in favor for device properties.
>> >
>> > Wooha, nice work. I can't really comment on it but wondered how you want
>> > to upstream it (after reviews)? Pull request of an immutable branch for
>> > nvmem-tree sounds best to me. Then I could also pull it in if i2c needs
>> > it. Probably same situation for arm-soc...
>> >
>>
>> I initially wanted to merge small parts of it starting with v4.18, but
>> there were some voices against merging APIs without users. I'm not
>> sure how it should go in. There'll be a need for multiple immutable
>> branches most probably...
>
> Hi Bartosz
>
> What this series does is show all the different parts are now
> available, and can be reviewed as a whole. Once that review is
> completed, merging in parts then becomes possible.
>
> It looks like you could probably merge the nvmem, mtd and net parts
> independently via there maintainers for 4.20, since i don't think
> there are any dependencies. The arm-soc changes in 4.21, and the
> removal of the platform data in 4.22?
>
>      Andrew

We need the first batch of SoC changes for the net part and then the
second batch depends on those net changes. Also: dragging the merge
for this over a year is a bit overkill.

Sekhar: I know you're usually provided with immutable branches from
framework maintainers for the SoC changes - is it ok for you to
provide the net maintainers with an immutable branch after applying
the first part of davinci board file changes?

Bart

Powered by blists - more mailing lists