linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] crypto: sun8i-ce - Fix runtime PM imbalance in sun8i_ce_cipher

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: <20200623165615.i7iphakzjeu2d3fq@gilmour.lan>
Date:   Tue, 23 Jun 2020 18:56:15 +0200
From:   Maxime Ripard <maxime@...no.tech>
To:     Markus Elfring <Markus.Elfring@....de>
Cc:     Dinghao Liu <dinghao.liu@....edu.cn>,
        linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, linux-crypto@...r.kernel.org,
        Aditya Pakki <pakki001@....edu>,
        Navid Emamdoost <emamd001@....edu>, Kangjie Lu <kjlu@....edu>,
        Qiushi Wu <wu000273@....edu>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        YueHaibing <yuehaibing@...wei.com>,
        Mauro Carvalho Chehab <mchehab+huawei@...nel.org>,
        Herbert Xu <herbert@...dor.apana.org.au>,
        Eric Biggers <ebiggers@...gle.com>,
        "David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
        Corentin Labbe <clabbe.montjoie@...il.com>,
        Chen-Yu Tsai <wens@...e.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] crypto: sun8i-ce - Fix runtime PM imbalance in
 sun8i_ce_cipher_init

On Tue, Jun 23, 2020 at 05:00:32PM +0200, Markus Elfring wrote:
> >>> Fix this by …
> >>
> >> Please replace the beginning of this sentence with the tag “Fixes”.
> >> https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux.git/tree/Documentation/process/submitting-patches.rst?id=625d3449788f85569096780592549d0340e9c0c7#n183
> >
> > No, not really. The comment you (partially) quoted explains how the
> > issue is fixed, your suggestion explains what commit introduced the fix
> > in the first place. They are both beneficial, but there's strictly no
> > reason to remove the former for the latter.
> 
> Do you care to improve this change description another bit?

I'm not sure which change description you're talking about?

Maxime