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]

Message-ID: <1jpngobpei.fsf@starbuckisacylon.baylibre.com>
Date:   Mon, 16 Dec 2019 10:17:25 +0100
From:   Jerome Brunet <jbrunet@...libre.com>
To:     Stephen Boyd <sboyd@...nel.org>,
        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


On Tue 03 Dec 2019 at 10:05, Stephen Boyd <sboyd@...nel.org> wrote:

> 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.

No worries, I was referring to the v5.6 cycle, not the v5.5 merge
window.