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]

Date:   Tue, 29 Oct 2019 18:21:12 +0100
From:   Daniel Lezcano <daniel.lezcano@...aro.org>
To:     Joe Perches <joe@...ches.com>, 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 29/10/2019 18:15, Joe Perches wrote:
> 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.

Ah, I guess it is for Gerrit but we don't want those Change-Id in the
kernel history, right?

-- 
 <http://www.linaro.org/> Linaro.org │ Open source software for ARM SoCs

Follow Linaro:  <http://www.facebook.com/pages/Linaro> Facebook |
<http://twitter.com/#!/linaroorg> Twitter |
<http://www.linaro.org/linaro-blog/> Blog