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: <12403040.8iQv1AJh6Y@kreacher>
Date:   Thu, 13 Jun 2019 00:07:34 +0200
From:   "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...ysocki.net>
To:     Suzuki K Poulose <suzuki.poulose@....com>
Cc:     rafael@...nel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        gregkh@...uxfoundation.org, lenb@...nel.org,
        linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org, linux-spi@...r.kernel.org,
        broonie@...nel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 07/13] drivers: Add generic match helper by ACPI_COMPANION device

On Wednesday, June 12, 2019 11:43:38 AM CEST Suzuki K Poulose wrote:
> Hi Rafael,
> 
> On 06/06/2019 10:57, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > On Thu, Jun 6, 2019 at 11:28 AM Suzuki K Poulose <suzuki.poulose@....com> wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> On 06/06/2019 10:17, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> >>> On Wed, Jun 5, 2019 at 5:14 PM Suzuki K Poulose <suzuki.poulose@....com> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>> Add a generic helper to match a device by the acpi device.
> >>>
> >>> "by its ACPI companion device object", please.
> >>
> >> Sure.
> >>
> >>>
> >>> Also, it would be good to combine this patch with the patch(es) that
> >>> cause device_match_acpi_dev() to be actually used.
> >>>
> >>> Helpers without any users are arguably not useful.
> >>
> >> Sure, the helpers will be part of the part2 of the whole series,
> >> which will actually have the individual subsystems consuming the
> >> new helpers. For your reference, it is available here :
> >>
> >> http://linux-arm.org/git?p=linux-skp.git;a=shortlog;h=refs/heads/driver-cleanup/v2
> >>
> >> e.g:
> >> http://linux-arm.org/git?p=linux-skp.git;a=commit;h=59534e843e2f214f1f29659993f6e423bef16b28
> >>
> >> I could simply pull those patches into this part, if you prefer that.
> > 
> > Not really.
> > 
> > I'd rather do it the other way around: push the introduction of the
> > helpers to part 2.
> 
> Sure, I will do that.
> 
> > 
> >> However, that would be true for the other patches in the part2.
> >> I am open to suggestions, on how to split the series.
> > 
> > You can introduce each helper along with its users in one patch.
> > 
> > This way the total number of patches will be reduced and they will be
> > easier to review IMO.
> > 
> 
> Wouldn't it make the merging complicated ? I am still not clear how we plan
> to merge the part 2 ?

I wouldn't worry about it that much.  Without review, you have nothing to merge anyway.

Technically, every patch with a new helper and its users can go in via the Greg's tree
as long as it has been ACKed by the maintainers of the code touched by it.



Powered by blists - more mailing lists

Powered by Openwall GNU/*/Linux Powered by OpenVZ