linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 0/3] clk: let clock perform allocation in init

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, 03 Dec 2019 01:05:15 -0800
From:   Stephen Boyd <sboyd@...nel.org>
To:     Jerome Brunet <jbrunet@...libre.com>,
        Michael Turquette <mturquette@...libre.com>
Cc:     linux-clk@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/3] clk: let clock perform allocation in init

Quoting Jerome Brunet (2019-11-29 07:36:28)
> 
> On Tue 24 Sep 2019 at 14:39, Jerome Brunet <jbrunet@...libre.com> wrote:
> 
> > This patchset is a follow up on this pinky swear [0].
> > Its purpose is:
> >  * Clarify the acceptable use of clk_ops init() callback
> >  * Let the init() callback return an error code in case anything
> >    fail.
> >  * Add the terminate() counter part of of init() to release the
> >    resources which may have been claimed in init()
> >
> > After discussing with Stephen at LPC, I decided to drop the 2 last patches
> > of the RFC [1]. I can live without it for now and nobody expressed a
> > critical need to get the proposed placeholder.
> >
> > [0]: https://lkml.kernel.org/r/CAEG3pNB-143Pr_xCTPj=tURhpiTiJqi61xfDGDVdU7zG5H-2tA@mail.gmail.com
> > [1]: https://lkml.kernel.org/r/20190828102012.4493-1-jbrunet@baylibre.com
> >
> 
> Hi Stephen,
> 
> Do you think we can fit this into the incoming cycle ?
> 

Sorry I missed this one. I'll apply it soon but won't be for this merge
window.