linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 2/4] thermal: stm32: fix IRQ flood on low threshold

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]

Message-ID: <f668de19e156bd7a1bf599d9ce1f9d4f4fca4095.camel@perches.com>
Date:   Tue, 29 Oct 2019 10:15:35 -0700
From:   Joe Perches <joe@...ches.com>
To:     Daniel Lezcano <daniel.lezcano@...aro.org>,
        Pascal Paillet <p.paillet@...com>, mcoquelin.stm32@...il.com,
        alexandre.torgue@...com, robh+dt@...nel.org, mark.rutland@....com,
        rui.zhang@...el.com, edubezval@...il.com,
        amit.kucheria@...durent.com, david.hernandezsanchez@...com,
        wsa+renesas@...g-engineering.com,
        linux-stm32@...md-mailman.stormreply.com,
        linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, devicetree@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-pm@...r.kernel.org,
        Andy Whitcroft <apw@...onical.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/4] thermal: stm32: fix IRQ flood on low threshold

On Tue, 2019-10-29 at 18:11 +0100, Daniel Lezcano wrote:
> On 29/10/2019 17:45, Pascal Paillet wrote:
> > Fix IRQ flood on low threshold by too ways:
> 
> Can you state the issue first ?
> 
> > - improve temperature reading resolution,
> > - add an hysteresis to the low threshold: on low threshold interrupt,
> > it is not possible to get the temperature value that has fired the
> > interrupt. The time to acquire a new value is enough for the CPU to
> > become hotter than the current low threshold.
[]
> > Signed-off-by: Pascal Paillet <p.paillet@...com>
> > Change-Id: I3b63b8aab38fd651a165c4e69a2d090b3c6f5db3
> 
> Please remove the Change-Id tag.
> 
> Joe, Andy? checkpatch does not see the Change-Id, is it the expected
> behavior?

Yes.  It's after a sign-off so checkpatch doesn't care.