linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 06/18] m68k: Replace setup_irq() by request

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:   Sun, 1 Mar 2020 06:35:11 +0530
From:   afzal mohammed <afzal.mohd.ma@...il.com>
To:     Finn Thain <fthain@...egraphics.com.au>
Cc:     linux-m68k@...ts.linux-m68k.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        Greg Ungerer <gerg@...ux-m68k.org>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@...ux-m68k.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 06/18] m68k: Replace setup_irq() by request_irq()

Hi,

On Sun, Mar 01, 2020 at 10:11:51AM +1100, Finn Thain wrote:
> On Sat, 29 Feb 2020, afzal mohammed wrote:

> > [...] 
> > Specific to m68k, following changes has been made based on m68 family
> > ;) feedback,
> > 
> 
> None of my comments were specific to any architecture.

One thing i had in my background, but realize now that didn't express
anywhere in my mails, in essence what Geert mentioned, i.e. being
legacy code, i did not give a treatment that would have been given to
adding new code.

But m68k subthread has been a very lively one and as not many changes,
felt it was not fair from my side not to handle almost as though it is
a new code addition.

There has been conflicting opinions, so i had to take a call one way
or other, including one against what i did not feel natural, mentioned
below, please let me know if further changes are required.

> > 3. s/pr_err/pr_debug
> 
> Please just ignore my opinion on that, since it contradicts the 
> maintainer's guidance/preference.

Yes, i will be remove this change.

Regards
afzal