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]

Message-ID: <20200304012408.GA5014@afzalpc>
Date:   Wed, 4 Mar 2020 06:54:08 +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 Finn,

On Mon, Mar 02, 2020 at 05:26:17PM +1100, Finn Thain wrote:

> I had assumed that your intention was to find a consensus so that the 
> whole tree could be consistently and automatically improved

Yeah, my main goal was to get rid of setup_irq(), other things were
secondary and proceeded to achieve the removal by hook or crook, but was
caught red handed :)

> > Sometimes had a feeling as though the changes in this series is akin to 
> > cutting the foot to fit the shoe ;), but still went ahead as it was 
> > legacy code, easier & less error prone. But now based on the overall 
> > feedback, to proceed, i had to change.
> > 
> 
> Not based on feedback from me I hope -- I have no veto in this case, as 
> you can see from MAINTAINERS.

i don't know what to say, i attempted to accomodate the reviews as
much as possible, some times when opinions are conflicting i had to
take a call one way or the other, with more importance to maintainer's
view.

Regards
afzal