linux-kernel - Re: [alsa-devel] [PATCH 1/4] soundwire: sdw_slave: add new fields to track probe status

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:   Mon, 11 Nov 2019 10:34:19 -0600
From:   Pierre-Louis Bossart <pierre-louis.bossart@...ux.intel.com>
To:     Vinod Koul <vkoul@...nel.org>
Cc:     alsa-devel@...a-project.org, tiwai@...e.de,
        gregkh@...uxfoundation.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        Ranjani Sridharan <ranjani.sridharan@...ux.intel.com>,
        broonie@...nel.org, srinivas.kandagatla@...aro.org,
        jank@...ence.com, slawomir.blauciak@...el.com,
        Sanyog Kale <sanyog.r.kale@...el.com>,
        Bard liao <yung-chuan.liao@...ux.intel.com>,
        Rander Wang <rander.wang@...ux.intel.com>
Subject: Re: [alsa-devel] [PATCH 1/4] soundwire: sdw_slave: add new fields to
 track probe status



On 11/9/19 5:12 AM, Vinod Koul wrote:
> On 08-11-19, 08:55, Pierre-Louis Bossart wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 11/7/19 10:29 PM, Vinod Koul wrote:
>>> On 04-11-19, 08:32, Pierre-Louis Bossart wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On 11/2/19 11:56 PM, Vinod Koul wrote:
>>>>> On 23-10-19, 16:06, Pierre-Louis Bossart wrote:
>>>>>> Changes to the sdw_slave structure needed to solve race conditions on
>>>>>> driver probe.
>>>>>
>>>>> Can you please explain the race you have observed, it would be a very
>>>>> useful to document it as well
>>>>
>>>> the races are explained in the [PATCH 00/18] soundwire: code hardening and
>>>> suspend-resume support series.
>>>
>>> It would make sense to explain it here as well to give details to
>>> reviewers, there is nothing wrong with too much detail!
>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The functionality is added in the next patch.
>>>>>
>>>>> which one..?
>>>>
>>>> [PATCH 00/18] soundwire: code hardening and suspend-resume support
>>>
>>> Yeah great! let me play detective with 18 patch series. I asked for a
>>> patch and got a series!
>>>
>>> Again, please help the maintainer to help you. We would love to see this
>>> merged as well, but please step up and give more details in cover
>>> letter and changelogs. I shouldn't need to do guesswork and scan through the
>>> inbox to find the context!
>>
>> We are clearly not going anywhere.
> 
> Correct as you don't seem to provide clear answers, I am asking again
> which patch implements the new fields added here, how difficult is it to
> provide the *specific* patch which implements this so that I can compare
> the implementation and see why this is needed and apply if fine!
> 
> But no you will not provide a clear answer and start ranting!
> 
>> I partitioned the patches to make your maintainer life easier and help the
>> integration of SoundWire across two trees. All I get is negative feedback,
>> grand-standing, and zero comments on actual changes.
> 
> No you get asked specific question which you do not like and start off
> on a tangent!
> 
>> For the record, I am mindful of reviewer/maintainer workload, and I did
>> contact you in September to check your availability and provided a pointer
>> to initial code changes. I did send a first version a week prior to your
>> travel/vacation, I resend another version when you were back and waited yet
>> another two weeks to resend a second version. I also contacted Takashi, Mark
>> and you to suggest this code partition, and did not get any pushback. It's
>> not like I am pushing stuff down your throat, I have been patient and
>> considerate.
>>
>> Please start with the patches "soundwire: code hardening and suspend-resume
>> support" and come back to this interface description when you have reviewed
>> these changes. It's not detective work, it's working around the consequences
>> of having separate trees for Audio and SoundWire.
> 
> Again, which patch in the series does implement these new members!

It's really straightforward...here is the match between headers and 
functionality:

[PATCH v2 1/5] soundwire: sdw_slave: add new fields to track probe status
[PATCH v2 02/19] soundwire: fix race between driver probe and 
update_status callback

[PATCH v2 2/5] soundwire: add enumeration_complete structure
[PATCH v2 12/19] soundwire: add enumeration_complete signaling

[PATCH v2 3/5] soundwire: add initialization_complete definition
[PATCH v2 13/19] soundwire: bus: add initialization_complete signaling

[PATCH v2 4/5] soundwire: intel: update interfaces between ASoC and 
SoundWire
[PATCH v2 5/5] soundwire: intel: update stream callbacks for 
hwparams/free stream operations
[PATCH v2 13/14] soundwire: intel: free all resources on hw_free()

I suggested an approach that you didn't comment on, and now I am not 
sure what to make of the heated wording and exclamation marks. You did 
not answer to Liam's question on links between ASoC/SoundWire - despite 
the fact that drivers/soundwire cannot be an isolated subsystem, both 
the Intel and Qualcomm solutions have a big fat 'depends on SND_SOC'.

At this point I am formally asking for your view and guidance on how we 
are going to do the SoundWire/ASoC integration. It's now your time to 
make suggestions on what the flow should be between you and 
Mark/Takashi. If you don't want this initial change to the header files, 
then what is your proposal?