linux-kernel - Re: [GIT PULL] sh: remove sh5 support

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: <20200601181259.GV1079@brightrain.aerifal.cx>
Date:   Mon, 1 Jun 2020 14:13:00 -0400
From:   Rich Felker <dalias@...c.org>
To:     John Paul Adrian Glaubitz <glaubitz@...sik.fu-berlin.de>
Cc:     Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>,
        Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>, linux-sh@...r.kernel.org,
        ysato@...rs.sourceforge.jp, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        viro@...iv.linux.org.uk, Rob Landley <rob@...dley.net>,
        Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@...ux-m68k.org>,
        Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: [GIT PULL] sh: remove sh5 support

On Sat, May 30, 2020 at 10:08:09AM +0200, John Paul Adrian Glaubitz wrote:
> On 5/29/20 7:53 PM, Rich Felker wrote:
> > Frustratingly, I _still_ don't have an official tree on kernel.org for
> > the purpose of being the canonical place for linux-next to pull from,
> > due to policies around pgp keys and nobody following up on signing
> > mine. This is all really silly since there are ridiculously many
> > independent channels I could cryptographically validate identity
> > through with vanishing probability that they're all compromised. For
> > the time being I'll reactivate my repo on git.musl-libc.org.
> 
> May I suggest to pick up these patches, for example? There might be
> more I missed, but getting these merged should already help a lot with
> the clean-up of arch/sh.

This was really helpful, but one thing that would make it easier if
you have any more to list is including message-ids rather than (or in
addition to) marc.info links. I had to go through and reverse them all
to message-ids (or at least subjects) to find the patches from my
mailbox to git-am.

> > [RESEND PATCH v2] sh: sh4a: Bring back tmu3_device early device
> > https://marc.info/?l=linux-sh&m=159061283109675&w=2

OK.

> > [PATCH] sh: Drop CONFIG_MTD_M25P80 in sh7757lcr_defconfig
> > https://marc.info/?l=linux-sh&m=158839364811658&w=2
> 
> > [PATCH v2] sh: Replace CONFIG_MTD_M25P80 with CONFIG_MTD_SPI_NOR in sh7757lcr_defconfig
> > https://marc.info/?l=linux-sh&m=158841749817761&w=2

Doesn't the second one here replace the first?

> > [PATCH 1/1] sh: remove sh5 support
> > https://marc.info/?l=linux-sh&m=158776683125080&w=2

I'm trying to figure out how to apply this since it was generated with
-D and git-am maliciously rejects it for that reason with an arcane
error message.

> > sh/mm: Fix a build failure via adding a missing bracket
> > https://marc.info/?l=linux-sh&m=158736532105299&w=2

Already upstream.

> > [PATCH 1/2] arch/sh: vmlinux.scr
> > https://marc.info/?l=linux-sh&m=158429470120959&w=2

OK.

> > [PATCH] sh: configs: Cleanup old Kconfig IO scheduler options
> > https://marc.info/?l=linux-sh&m=158195850120215&w=2

OK.

> > [PATCH resend 0/3] SH: compile fixup patches
> > https://marc.info/?l=linux-renesas-soc&m=157948330821790&w=2
> > https://marc.info/?l=linux-sh&m=157852970316892&w=2
> > https://marc.info/?l=linux-sh&m=157852984016938&w=2

OK.

> > [PATCH][repost] sh: clkfwk: remove r8/r16/r32
> > https://marc.info/?l=linux-renesas-soc&m=157852973916903&w=2

This one had objections by Geert that called for a v2, and was
teplaced by:

> > [PATCH] sh: clk: Fix discarding const qualifier warning
> > https://marc.info/?l=linux-sh&m=157839999010776&w=2

But this still had objections that the definitions on all archs should
be fixed for const correctness. It looks like that patch series is
still bouncing around; should I apply the SH part of it now?

> > [PATCH next] sh: remove call to memset after dma_alloc_coherent
> > https://marc.info/?l=linux-sh&m=157793031102356&w=2

Can anyone confirm that this is correct/safe?

> > [PATCH] sh: use generic strncpy()
> > https://marc.info/?l=linux-renesas-soc&m=157664657013309&w=2

Can you fill me in on the status of this? It looks like you were
following it. The subject says "use generic strncpy" but it's updating
the asm, and I think there are problems with the proposed asm.

> > [PATCH v2] SH: Convert ins[bwl]/outs[bwl] macros to inline functions
> > https://marc.info/?l=linux-sh&m=157656907716201&w=2

OK.

> > [PATCH v2] SH: Convert iounmap() macros to inline functions
> > https://marc.info/?l=linux-sh&m=157656903716172&w=2

OK.

> > [PATCH v2] sh: add missing DECLARE_EXPORT() for __ashiftrt_r4_xx
> > https://marc.info/?l=linux-sh&m=157619891030685&w=2

OK.

> > [PATCH] sh: add missing EXPORT_SYMBOL() for __delay
> > https://marc.info/?l=linux-kernel&m=157611811927852&w=2

OK.

> > [PATCH] sh: kgdb: Mark expected switch fall-throughs
> > https://marc.info/?l=linux-sh&m=157241987926081&w=2

This is already upstream.

Rich