linux-kernel - Re: [GIT PULL] fsi changes for 5.5

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: <20191107141736.GA109902@kroah.com>
Date:   Thu, 7 Nov 2019 15:17:36 +0100
From:   Greg KH <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
To:     Joel Stanley <joel@....id.au>
Cc:     linux-fsi@...ts.ozlabs.org, Jeremy Kerr <jk@...abs.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Andrew Jeffery <andrew@...id.au>
Subject: Re: [GIT PULL] fsi changes for 5.5

On Thu, Nov 07, 2019 at 12:09:50PM +0000, Joel Stanley wrote:
> Hi Greg,
> 
> Here's a set of changes I'd like merged for 5.5. They've been well
> tested in the openbmc tree over the past month or so as we've done
> hardware bring up using them. Aside from the three fixes I applied
> today they have seen time in linux-next too.
> 
> This is the first time I've sent you a pull request, so please let me
> know if you'd prefer it done differently.
> 
> The following changes since commit 755b0ef68f1802c786d0a53647145a5a7e46052a:
> 
>   fsi: aspeed: Clean up defines and documentation (2019-11-07 22:24:18 +1030)

The pull request looks good, but some of the individual patches, I have
questions on.  Also, a diffstat would be good so that I know I got it
right for the next time you send this.

As they aren't here in the emails, let me try to figure out how to
respond:
	- You have new dt bindings, yet no review from the DT
	  maintainers.
	- you move things around in sysfs, yet no documentation updates
	  happen
	- in 0005-fsi-Add-ast2600-master-driver.patch you have lots of
	  dev_dbg() lines left that shoudl be dropped as that's what
	  ftrace is for
	- you don't have any reviewers for some of these patches, that's
	  not good to stick in a pull request.
	- 0007-fsi-aspeed-Fix-OPB0-byte-order-register-values.patch does
	  not have a Fixes: tag, nor a stable@...r cc:, why not?
	- 0010-fsi-fsi_master_class-can-be-static.patch has no changelog
	  text at all, which is not ok.

Can you fix all of this up, and send it as a set of normal patches so at
least I can review the things that do not have any other reviewers on
it?

thanks,

greg k-h