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:   Sun, 17 Mar 2019 10:54:35 +0100
From:   Greg KH <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
To:     "Enrico Weigelt, metux IT consult" <lkml@...ux.net>
Cc:     "Enrico Weigelt, metux IT consult" <info@...ux.net>,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, eric@...olt.net,
        stefan.wahren@...e.com, f.fainelli@...il.com, rjui@...adcom.com,
        sbranden@...adcom.com, bcm-kernel-feedback-list@...adcom.com,
        andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com, vz@...ia.com,
        matthias.bgg@...il.com, yamada.masahiro@...ionext.com,
        tklauser@...tanz.ch, richard.genoud@...il.com,
        macro@...ux-mips.org, u.kleine-koenig@...gutronix.de,
        kernel@...gutronix.de, slemieux.tyco@...il.com,
        andy.gross@...aro.org, david.brown@...aro.org, shawnguo@...nel.org,
        s.hauer@...gutronix.de, festevam@...il.com, linux-imx@....com,
        baohua@...nel.org, jacmet@...site.dk, linux-serial@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-arm-msm@...r.kernel.org, linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 10/45] drivers: tty: serial: zs: use devm_* functions

On Sat, Mar 16, 2019 at 10:17:11AM +0100, Enrico Weigelt, metux IT consult wrote:
> On 16.03.19 04:26, Greg KH wrote:
> 
> > No, it's just that those systems do not allow those devices to be
> > removed because they are probably not on a removable bus.
> 
> Ok, devices (hw) might not be removable - that also the case for uarts
> builtin some SoCs, or the good old PC w/ 8250. But does that also mean
> that the driver should not be removable ?

No, but 'rmmod' is not a normal operation that anyone ever does in a
working system.  It is only for developer's ease-of-use.

> IMHO, even if that's the case, it's still inconsistent. The driver then
> shouldn't support a remove at all (or even builtin only), not just
> incomplete remove.

Cleaning up properly when the module is unloaded is a good idea, but so
far the patches you submitted did not change anything from a logic point
of view.  They all just cleaned up memory the same way it was cleaned up
before, so I really do not understand what you are trying to do here.

> >> Okay, I was on a wrong track here - I had the silly idea that it would
> >> make things easier if we'd do it the same way everywhere.
> > 
> > "Consistent" is good, and valid, but touching old drivers that have few
> > users is always risky, and you need a solid reason to do so.
> 
> Understood.
> 
> By the way: do we have some people who have those old hw and could test?
> Should we (try to) create some ? Perhaps some "tester" entry in
> MAINTAINERS file ? (I could ask around several people who might have
> lots of old / rare hardware.)

Let's not clutter up MAINTAINERS with anything else please.

> >> Understood. Assuming I've found some of these cases, shall I use devm
> >> oder just add the missing release ?
> > 
> > If it actually makes the code "simpler" or "more obvious", sure, that's
> > fine.  But churn for churns sake is not ok.
> 
> Ok.
> 
> > I put the review of new patch submissions on hold, yes.  Almost all
> > maintainers do that as we can not add new patches to our trees at that
> > point in time.
> 
> hmm, looks like a pipeline stall ;-)
> why not collecting in a separate branch, which later gets rebased to
> mainline when rc is out ?

I do do that for subsystems that actually have a high patch rate.  The
tty/serial subsystem is not such a thing, and it can handle 2 weeks of
delay just fine.

> > And I do have other things I do during that period so it's not like I'm
> > just sitting around doing nothing :)
> 
> So it's also a fixed schedule for your other work. Understood.
> 
> It seems that this workflow can confuse people. Few days ago, somebody
> became nervous about missing reactions on patches. Your autoresponder
> worked for me, but maybe not for everybody.

Why would it not work for everybody?  Kernel development has been done
in this manner for over a decade.  Having a 2 week window like this is
good for the maintainers, remember they are the most limited resource we
have, not developers.

thanks,

greg k-h

Powered by blists - more mailing lists