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  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:   Sat, 2 May 2020 17:40:35 +0300
From:   Dmitry Osipenko <digetx@...il.com>
To:     Wolfram Sang <wsa@...-dreams.de>,
        Thierry Reding <thierry.reding@...il.com>
Cc:     Jon Hunter <jonathanh@...dia.com>,
        Laxman Dewangan <ldewangan@...dia.com>,
        Manikanta Maddireddy <mmaddireddy@...dia.com>,
        Vidya Sagar <vidyas@...dia.com>, linux-i2c@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-tegra@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/2] i2c: tegra: Better handle case where CPU0 is busy
 for a long time

27.04.2020 18:31, Wolfram Sang пишет:
> 
>> Yes, that bug should be fixed anyway. But that doesn't justify breaking
>> suspend/resume completely, which *is* a regression.
>>
>> Look, I'm not saying that we should drop this patch altogether. All I'm
>> saying is that we should postpone it so that we can: a) get suspend and
>> resume working again (and by doing so make sure no other suspend/resume
>> regressions silently creep in, because that always seems to happen when
>> you're not looking) and b) fix any preexisting issues without possibly
>> scrambling the result with this perhaps unrelated fix.
>>
>> So, again, I think the safest road forward is to back this one out for
>> now, fix whatever this other bug is and once suspend/resume is working
>> properly again we can revisit this patch based on a known-good baseline.
> 
> I am with you here. I want to add that the proper fix should be
> developed without thinking too much about stable in the first place.
> *When* we have a proper working fix, then we can think about making it
> "more" suitable for backporting. Yet, it may also be a result that older
> kernels need a different solution. Or have no solution at all, in case
> they can't do atomic_transfers and this is needed.
> 
> D'accord?
> 

I saw that you submitted the revert of the patches for 5.7, hopefully it
won't result in putting the PCIe driver problem into the back burner.
I'll try not to forget about these patches to resubmit them later on,
once the problem will be resolved :)

Powered by blists - more mailing lists