linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v4 12/20] mtd: spi-nor: Print debug message when the read back test fails

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:   Thu, 7 Nov 2019 11:28:52 +0530
From:   Vignesh Raghavendra <vigneshr@...com>
To:     <Tudor.Ambarus@...rochip.com>, <boris.brezillon@...labora.com>
CC:     <richard@....at>, <linux-mtd@...ts.infradead.org>,
        <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, <miquel.raynal@...tlin.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 12/20] mtd: spi-nor: Print debug message when the read
 back test fails



On 06/11/19 1:09 PM, Vignesh Raghavendra wrote:
> 
> 
> On 06/11/19 12:54 PM, Tudor.Ambarus@...rochip.com wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 11/05/2019 02:37 PM, Vignesh Raghavendra wrote:
>>> On 02/11/19 4:53 PM, Tudor.Ambarus@...rochip.com wrote:
>>>> From: Tudor Ambarus <tudor.ambarus@...rochip.com>
>>>>
>>>> Demystify where the EIO error occurs.
>>>>
>>>> Signed-off-by: Tudor Ambarus <tudor.ambarus@...rochip.com>
>>>> ---
>>> I think this is a small enough change that can be squashed into previous
>>> patch itself
>>>
>>
>> I made separate patches because this is a separate logical change. The previous
>> patch extends the check on all bits of the Status Register, while this one
>> prints a debug message in case of EIO. Thus I tried to have a single logical
>> change contained in a single patch. I'm clearly no expert in this (Boris asked
>> me in v3 to split patches because I did too many things in one patch :) ), so I
>> would keep this as is, but if you still feel that it should be squashed, then
>> I'll do it. Please let me know.
>>
> 
> I am fine either way. I don't have a strong preference...
> 

If you want to keep these separate:

Reviewed-by: Vignesh Raghavendra <vigneshr@...com>

Regards
Vignesh