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

Message-ID: <f8ae9a1a-ba89-497a-c539-30f3f6dac5e9@kernel.dk>
Date:   Tue, 28 Jul 2020 09:51:30 -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 11:17 PM, Vaibhav Gupta wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 27, 2020 at 02:30:03PM -0600, Jens Axboe wrote:
>> 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:
>>> 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.
>>
> I think I can break this patch into one commit per driver. The reason that
> all updates got into one single patch is that I made
> ata_pci_device_suspend/resume() static and exported just the
> ata_pci_device_pm_ops variable. Thus, all the driver using .suspend/.resume()
> had to be updated in a single patch.
> 
> First I will make changes in drivers/ata/libata-core.c, but won't make any
> function static. Thus, each driver can be updated in independent commits
> without breaking anything. And then in the last commit, I can hide the
> unnecessary .suspend()/.resume() callbacks. This will create patch-series of 55
> or 56 patches.
> 
> Will this approach work?

That should work, but more importantly, ensure you get some folks signed up
for testing this functionality.

-- 
Jens Axboe