linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 2/2] platform/chrome: cros_ec_proto: check for missing EC_CMD_HOST_EVENT_GET_WAKE

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]

Date:   Thu, 23 Jul 2020 10:04:16 +0200
From:   Enric Balletbo i Serra <enric.balletbo@...labora.com>
To:     Brian Norris <briannorris@...omium.org>
Cc:     Benson Leung <bleung@...omium.org>,
        Guenter Roeck <groeck@...omium.org>,
        Linux Kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] platform/chrome: cros_ec_proto: check for missing
 EC_CMD_HOST_EVENT_GET_WAKE_MASK

Hi Brian,

On 22/7/20 22:50, Brian Norris wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 22, 2020 at 3:19 AM Enric Balletbo i Serra
> <enric.balletbo@...labora.com> wrote:
>>
>> Hi Brian,
>>
>> Thank you for your patch, I'll take a look soon but I'd like to ask if you can
>> join the discussion with this patchset [1], specially this one [2]. We're trying
>> to match EC errors with standard linux kernel errors because we think can be
>> helpful.
>>
>> [1] https://lore.kernel.org/patchwork/cover/1276734/
>> [2] https://lore.kernel.org/patchwork/patch/1276738/
> 
> Hi Enric,
> 
> Thanks, I'll do that. I do wonder sometimes how non-maintainers should
> best support "community" around these things, for subsystems that
> don't have a dedicated mailing list and are therefore sent only to
> maintainers + LKML-fire-hose. I could probably subscribe to LKML and
> filter it, but something tells me my mailbox will still manage to
> explode somehow... Anyway, I digress.
> 

We talked sometimes on having a dedicated ML, but for one reason or the other,
and as we don't have a lot of volume, we didn't set up (could be an option).

Another thing that we can do (although this is specific for you and doesn't
solve the problem with people like you that are interested on this), is add you
as a reviewer in the MAINTAINERS file. The CrOS EC has a lot of subtleties, and
having more ChromeOS people involved in the reviewing upstream is more than welcome.

Regards,
Enric

> Other than perhaps taking a lesson not to propagate -ENOTSUPP, I don't
> think this series should block on that, as this is a bugfix IMO.
> 
> Regards,
> Brian
>