linux-kernel - Re: Applied "regulator: core: add enable_count for consumers to debug fs" to the regulator tree

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Tue, 20 Nov 2018 08:49:32 -0800
From:   Doug Anderson <dianders@...omium.org>
To:     Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org>
Cc:     LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: Applied "regulator: core: add enable_count for consumers to debug
 fs" to the regulator tree

Hi,

On Tue, Nov 20, 2018 at 8:47 AM Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org> wrote:
>
> On Tue, Nov 20, 2018 at 04:41:25PM +0000, Mark Brown wrote:
> > On Tue, Nov 20, 2018 at 08:37:04AM -0800, Doug Anderson wrote:
> >
> > > Hold up!  How does this compile for you?  It looks as if you landed it
> > > before ("regulator: core: Only count load for enabled consumers")
> > > which is the patch that adds "enable_count" to the consumer structure.
> >
> > > I'm just working on my replies to you about the dependencies on these
> > > patches but they're definitely not separate...
> >
> > Dunno, but my script for applying things does a build after each patch
> > and didn't complain so...  are you sure it's not e-mails getting
> > reordered?
>
> Wait, no - I didn't apply that but my tree does compile at the minute
> because my test config doesn't have debugfs enabled.  If I turn that on
> then the relevant code gets built and I see an error.  I'll drop this.
>
> This does, however, beg the question why this is a separate patch in the
> first place?

I'll squash the two together for v2.  I felt it might be controversial
to add this to debugfs but I guess not.

-Doug