linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v1] PCI: Move Rohm vendor ID to generic list

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]

Date:   Thu, 8 Nov 2018 14:19:12 +0200
From:   Andy Shevchenko <andy.shevchenko@...il.com>
To:     Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
Cc:     Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com>,
        Vinod Koul <vkoul@...nel.org>,
        Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@...aro.org>,
        "David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
        Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org>,
        Felipe Balbi <balbi@...nel.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Bjorn Helgaas <bhelgaas@...gle.com>, linux-pci@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v1] PCI: Move Rohm vendor ID to generic list

On Thu, Nov 8, 2018 at 12:10 PM Greg Kroah-Hartman
<gregkh@...uxfoundation.org> wrote:
>
> On Wed, Nov 07, 2018 at 09:58:56PM +0200, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> > Move the Rohm vendor ID to pci_ids.h from dozen of drivers.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com>
> > ---
> >
> > I believe the best chance to get it merged and be less intrusive to ongoing
> > work is through PCI subsystem as a _fix_ for v4.20.
>
> What?  Why?  Who cares?

> This can trickle in over the next year or never, as it isn't a bugfix,
> or "necessary" at all.  Just add it to pci_ids.h and when that gets
> merged, you can try to remove it from the individual drivers if it
> really is annoying to you.
>

> But this is _NOT_ a fix for anything, don't try to mask it as one, that
> feels like "crying wolf" here :(

It doesn't fix anything, indeed. But since it touches 9 drivers
simultaneously, it might be easier to push it earlier, or other way
around — at the end of the cycle.
OTOH, I don't think there would be conflicts if it goes normal way
through PCI subsystem.

-- 
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko