linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 0/3] gpiolib: fix a regression introduced by gpio_do_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: <20200203145613.GG32742@smile.fi.intel.com>
Date:   Mon, 3 Feb 2020 16:56:13 +0200
From:   Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com>
To:     Bartosz Golaszewski <brgl@...ev.pl>
Cc:     Kent Gibson <warthog618@...il.com>,
        Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@...aro.org>,
        Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
        Guenter Roeck <linux@...ck-us.net>,
        Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@...ux-m68k.org>,
        "open list:GPIO SUBSYSTEM" <linux-gpio@...r.kernel.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Bartosz Golaszewski <bgolaszewski@...libre.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/3] gpiolib: fix a regression introduced by
 gpio_do_set_config()

On Mon, Feb 03, 2020 at 03:35:41PM +0100, Bartosz Golaszewski wrote:
> pon., 3 lut 2020 o 15:31 Andy Shevchenko
> <andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com> napisał(a):
> >
> > On Mon, Feb 03, 2020 at 02:30:23PM +0100, Bartosz Golaszewski wrote:
> > > From: Bartosz Golaszewski <bgolaszewski@...libre.com>
> > >
> > > These three patches fix a regression introduced by commit d90f36851d65
> > > ("gpiolib: have a single place of calling set_config()"). We first need
> > > to revert patches that came on top of it, then apply the actual fix.
> >
> > Thank you for addressing this!
> >
> > It might be good to add Fixes / Depends-on to the first two, but I didn't look
> > if they are in any of v5.5 or older release.
> >
> 
> They're not - the patch in question was merged for v5.6 and then the
> "fixes" came on top of it once it got into next. We're fine here IMO.

Good to know.

P.S. A bit of offtopic. Since you are going to send a PR for v5.6-rc2,
     perhaps you can include fixes for MAINTAINERS data base.

-- 
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko