linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v3] ARM: imx6plus: enable internal routing of clk_enet

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <CAGngYiWg=HHVO00D=3OCEfS_inC3CMY-MQg6iMj9OLxUNFtygA@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Wed, 24 Jun 2020 14:24:16 -0400
From:   Sven Van Asbroeck <thesven73@...il.com>
To:     Fabio Estevam <festevam@...il.com>
Cc:     Shawn Guo <shawnguo@...nel.org>, Fugang Duan <fugang.duan@....com>,
        Sascha Hauer <s.hauer@...gutronix.de>,
        Pengutronix Kernel Team <kernel@...gutronix.de>,
        NXP Linux Team <linux-imx@....com>,
        "moderated list:ARM/FREESCALE IMX / MXC ARM ARCHITECTURE" 
        <linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
        linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3] ARM: imx6plus: enable internal routing of clk_enet_ref
 where possible

Hi Fabio,

On Wed, Jun 24, 2020 at 1:55 PM Fabio Estevam <festevam@...il.com> wrote:
>
> We could avoid checking for if (!IS_ERR(gpr)) two times in a row if
> the following patch is applied before yours:
> https://pastebin.com/raw/Ftkq2VVp
>
> What do you think?

I think this is a good idea.
I was never fully comfortable with checking IS_ERR(gpr) twice, but I
know from experience that minimal patches are more likely
to be accepted.

Shawn / Andy, what do you think? Should I re-spin this as a patch
set, with Fabio's patch in front?