linux-kernel - Re: [GIT PULL] Thermal-SoC management changes for v5.2-rc1

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, 16 May 2019 09:55:33 -0700
From:   Guenter Roeck <linux@...ck-us.net>
To:     Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Eduardo Valentin <edubezval@...il.com>,
        Stefan Wahren <stefan.wahren@...e.com>
Cc:     Rui Zhang <rui.zhang@...el.com>,
        ACPI Devel Maling List <linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org>,
        Linux PM <linux-pm@...r.kernel.org>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [GIT PULL] Thermal-SoC management changes for v5.2-rc1

On 5/16/19 8:07 AM, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> On Wed, May 15, 2019 at 9:43 PM Eduardo Valentin <edubezval@...il.com> wrote:
>>
>> - thermal core has a new devm_* API for registering cooling devices, thanks to Guenter R.
>>    I took the entire series, that is why you see changes on drivers/hwmon in this pull.
> 
> This clashed badly with commit 6b1ec4789fb1 ("hwmon: (pwm-fan) Add RPM
> support via external interrupt"), which added a timer to the pwm-fan
> handling.
> 
> In particular, that timer now needed the same kind of cleanup changes,
> and I'd like you guys (particularly Guenther, who was involved on both
> sides) to double-check my merge.
> 
> The way I solved it was to just make the pwm_fan_pwm_disable()
> callback do both the pwm_diable() _and_ the del_timer_sync() on the
> new timer. That seemed to be the simplest solution that meshed with
> the new devm cleanup model, but while I build-tested the result, I
> obviously did no actual use testing. And maybe there's some reason why
> that approach is flawed.
> 
> Guenther?

Sorry for the trouble. Looks like I did too much cleanup this time around.

Looks ok. I'll have to send a follow-up patch - we should check the
return value of devm_add_action_or_reset(). No idea why I didn't do that
in this series. I'll do that after the commit window closes (and after
I am back from vacation).

Thanks a lot for sorting this out.

Guenter