linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2] ata: use generic power management

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:   Mon, 27 Jul 2020 14:30:03 -0600
From:   Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk>
To:     Vaibhav Gupta <vaibhavgupta40@...il.com>
Cc:     Bjorn Helgaas <helgaas@...nel.org>,
        Bjorn Helgaas <bhelgaas@...gle.com>,
        Bjorn Helgaas <bjorn@...gaas.com>,
        Vaibhav Gupta <vaibhav.varodek@...il.com>,
        Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz <b.zolnierkie@...sung.com>,
        linux-ide@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel-mentees@...ts.linuxfoundation.org,
        Shuah Khan <skhan@...uxfoundation.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] ata: use generic power management

On 7/27/20 12:11 PM, Vaibhav Gupta wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 27, 2020 at 11:59:05AM -0600, Jens Axboe wrote:
>> On 7/27/20 11:51 AM, Vaibhav Gupta wrote:
>>> On Mon, Jul 27, 2020 at 11:42:51AM -0600, Jens Axboe wrote:
>>>> On 7/27/20 11:40 AM, Vaibhav Gupta wrote:
>>>>> The patch is compile-tested only.
>>>>
>>>> Please test and verify actual functionality, if you're serious
>>>> about potentially getting this into the kernel.
>>>>
>>> Hello Jens,
>>>
>>> Sadly I don't have the hardware. This upgrade is part of my Linux
>>> Kernel Mentorship Program project. Like other PCI drivers which I
>>> have updated, I could do compile-testing only. Though this patch
>>> covers 54 drivers but the actual change is done only in
>>> drivers/ata/libata-core. Since rest of the drivers make use of the
>>> same ata_pci_device_suspend/resume(), it was a chain reaction. I
>>> only had to change variable binding in "struct pci_driver" variable
>>> of dependent drivers.
>>
>> That's understandable, but you should find at least some hardware
>> (maybe remotely accessible) to test this on. I'm not going to apply
>> this without some confidence that it actually works, and compile only
>> testing is a far cry from that. Lots of code compiles, but fails
>> miserably at runtime.
>>
>> While it's touching 54 drivers, at least basic coverage of the most
>> popular choices will give everybody some confidence that it works in
>> general.
>>
> Yes, I agree. Actually with previous drivers, I was able to get help
> from maintainers and/or supporters for the hardware testing. Is that
> possible for this patch?

It might be, you'll have to ask people to help you, very rarely do people
just test patches unsolicited unless they have some sort of interest in the
feature.

This is all part of what it takes to get code upstream. Writing the code
is just a small part of it, the bigger part is usually getting it tested
and providing some assurance that you are willing to fix issues when/if
they come up.

You might want to consider splitting up the patchset a bit - you could
have one patch for the generic bits, then one for each chipset. That
would allow you to at least get some of the work upstream, once tested.

-- 
Jens Axboe