linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v4 1/2] edac: Add an API for edac device to report for multiple errors

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

Message-ID: <20191001105339.5tbdw2mrb2uwit6j@rric.localdomain>
Date:   Tue, 1 Oct 2019 10:53:47 +0000
From:   Robert Richter <rrichter@...vell.com>
To:     Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>
CC:     Hanna Hawa <hhhawa@...zon.com>,
        "mchehab@...nel.org" <mchehab@...nel.org>,
        "james.morse@....com" <james.morse@....com>,
        "linux-edac@...r.kernel.org" <linux-edac@...r.kernel.org>,
        "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        "dwmw@...zon.co.uk" <dwmw@...zon.co.uk>,
        "benh@...zon.com" <benh@...zon.com>,
        "ronenk@...zon.com" <ronenk@...zon.com>,
        "talel@...zon.com" <talel@...zon.com>,
        "jonnyc@...zon.com" <jonnyc@...zon.com>,
        "hanochu@...zon.com" <hanochu@...zon.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 1/2] edac: Add an API for edac device to report for
 multiple errors

On 01.10.19 12:25:39, Borislav Petkov wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 01, 2019 at 09:47:07AM +0000, Robert Richter wrote:
> > If you move to static inline for edac_device_handle_{ce,ue} the
> > symbols vanish and this breaks the abi. That's why the split in two
> > patches.
> 
> ABI issues do not concern upstream. And that coming from me working at a
> company who dance a lot to make ABI happy.
> 
> Also, I'm missing the reasoning why you use the ABI as an argument at
> all: do you know of a particular case where people are thinking of
> backporting this or this is all hypothetical.
> 
> > Your comment to not have a __ version as a third variant of the
> > interface makes sense to me. But to keep ABI your patch still needs to
> > be split.
> 
> Not really - normally, when you fix ABI issues with symbols
> disappearing, all of a sudden, you add dummy ones so that the ABI
> checker is happy.

Let's go with a single patch then and the function naming you
suggested before.

Thanks,

-Robert