linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v4 02/13] gpiolib: have a single place of calling set

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: <CAMpxmJU=wvONwure-MS9vb=0fuRgnf+wVshBQn2N=uwcZUG3Bw@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Mon, 3 Feb 2020 12:04:57 +0100
From:   Bartosz Golaszewski <bgolaszewski@...libre.com>
To:     Guenter Roeck <linux@...ck-us.net>
Cc:     Bartosz Golaszewski <brgl@...ev.pl>,
        Kent Gibson <warthog618@...il.com>,
        Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@...aro.org>,
        Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com>,
        Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
        linux-gpio <linux-gpio@...r.kernel.org>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Andy Shevchenko <andy.shevchenko@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 02/13] gpiolib: have a single place of calling set_config()

sob., 1 lut 2020 o 20:52 Guenter Roeck <linux@...ck-us.net> napisał(a):
>
> On Tue, Dec 24, 2019 at 01:06:58PM +0100, Bartosz Golaszewski wrote:
> > From: Bartosz Golaszewski <bgolaszewski@...libre.com>
> >
> > Instead of calling the gpiochip's set_config() callback directly and
> > checking its existence every time - just add a new routine that performs
> > this check internally. Call it in gpio_set_config() and
> > gpiod_set_transitory(). Also call it in gpiod_set_debounce() and drop
> > the check for chip->set() as it's irrelevant to this config option.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Bartosz Golaszewski <bgolaszewski@...libre.com>
> > Reviewed-by: Andy Shevchenko <andy.shevchenko@...il.com>
> > Reviewed-by: Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@...aro.org>
>
> This patch made it into mainline, even though a regression was reported
> against it by Geert. Please note that it is not just a theoretic problem
> but _does_ indeed cause regressions.
>
> Guenter
>

Hi Guenter,

I'm sorry for this, I was still largely unavailable for the past two
weeks. I'll address it today, this time for real.

Best regards,
Bartosz Golaszewski