linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 00/16] nvmem: rework of the subsystem for non-DT users

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <CAMRc=Mdmi91=2zn-T0B8C2rxVhsXL9cHh7mx8RamYfBpfDjC=Q@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Mon, 10 Sep 2018 16:58:13 +0200
From:   Bartosz Golaszewski <brgl@...ev.pl>
To:     Srinivas Kandagatla <srinivas.kandagatla@...aro.org>
Cc:     "David S . Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
        Mauro Carvalho Chehab <mchehab+samsung@...nel.org>,
        Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>,
        Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>, Sekhar Nori <nsekhar@...com>,
        Kevin Hilman <khilman@...nel.org>,
        David Lechner <david@...hnology.com>,
        Boris Brezillon <boris.brezillon@...tlin.com>,
        Andrew Lunn <andrew@...n.ch>, Alban Bedel <albeu@...e.fr>,
        Maxime Ripard <maxime.ripard@...tlin.com>,
        Chen-Yu Tsai <wens@...e.org>,
        linux-doc <linux-doc@...r.kernel.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Linux ARM <linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
        Bartosz Golaszewski <bgolaszewski@...libre.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 00/16] nvmem: rework of the subsystem for non-DT users

2018-09-10 12:02 GMT+02:00 Srinivas Kandagatla <srinivas.kandagatla@...aro.org>:
>
>
> On 10/09/18 09:24, Bartosz Golaszewski wrote:
>>
>> The API changes change so many things, that these series would be
>> incompatible. I can send the series separately but they would be
>> co-dependent anyway. Does it sound good?
>
>
> What am asking is to reorder the patches in a such a way that its easy to
> review.
> ex: Order can be :
> 1> kref and update nvmem_unregister followed by the provider changes.
> 2> Add support to cell tables, cell lookup, notifier
> 3> general cleanup patches  followed by fixes
>
> Current set seems to jump from one thing to other which makes it hard to
> follow and time consuming while review!
>

I would just change that ordering a bit: I think we should fix stuff
that's broken first, so fix the name field of struct nvmem_device,
then the rest as you listed it.

Bart