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: <e2ba3c23-4b85-f83b-0ba4-dc0db1b8dd0f@collabora.com>
Date:   Wed, 6 Nov 2019 22:26:47 +0000
From:   Guillaume Tucker <guillaume.tucker@...labora.com>
To:     Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@...aro.org>,
        tomeu.vizoso@...labora.com, mgalka@...labora.com,
        broonie@...nel.org, matthew.hart@...aro.org,
        Scott Branden <scott.branden@...adcom.com>,
        khilman@...libre.com, enric.balletbo@...labora.com,
        Chris Packham <chris.packham@...iedtelesis.co.nz>
Cc:     Scott Branden <sbranden@...adcom.com>,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-gpio@...r.kernel.org,
        bcm-kernel-feedback-list@...adcom.com,
        Bartosz Golaszewski <bgolaszewski@...libre.com>,
        Ray Jui <rjui@...adcom.com>,
        linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org
Subject: Re: next/master boot bisection: next-20191106 on r8a7795-salvator-x

On 06/11/2019 22:15, kernelci.org bot wrote:
> +static const struct of_device_id bcm_iproc_gpio_of_match[] __initconst = {
> +	{ .compatible = "brcm,iproc-gpio-cca" },
> +	{}
> +};
> +MODULE_DEVICE_TABLE(of, bcm_iproc_gpio_of_match);
> +
> +static struct platform_driver bcm_iproc_gpio_driver = {
> +	.driver = {
> +		.name = "iproc-xgs-gpio",
> +		.owner = THIS_MODULE,
> +		.of_match_table = bcm_iproc_gpio_of_match,
> +	},
> +	.probe = iproc_gpio_probe,
> +	.remove = iproc_gpio_remove,
> +};

There's a fix for this which Mark sent yesterday[1] and should
have now been applied, by removing __initconst for the
of_device_id table.  So this regression should not be present in
the next linux-next tag.

Guillaume

[1] https://www.spinics.net/lists/arm-kernel/msg766621.html

Powered by blists - more mailing lists

Powered by Openwall GNU/*/Linux Powered by OpenVZ