linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] uart:8250: change lock order in serial8250_do

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: <20200819092408.GB4353@alley>
Date:   Wed, 19 Aug 2020 11:24:08 +0200
From:   Petr Mladek <pmladek@...e.com>
To:     Sergey Senozhatsky <sergey.senozhatsky@...il.com>
Cc:     Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com>,
        Greg KH <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
        Guenter Roeck <linux@...ck-us.net>,
        Tony Lindgren <tony@...mide.com>,
        Kurt Kanzenbach <kurt@...utronix.de>,
        Raul Rangel <rrangel@...gle.com>,
        Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
        John Ogness <john.ogness@...utronix.de>,
        linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        linux-serial@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] uart:8250: change lock order in serial8250_do_startup()

On Wed 2020-08-19 10:52:09, Sergey Senozhatsky wrote:
> On (20/08/18 14:52), Petr Mladek wrote:
> > > I guess we may add some tags here
> > > 
> > > Fixes: 768aec0b5bcc ("serial: 8250: fix shared interrupts issues with SMP and RT kernels")
> > > Reported-by: Guenter Roeck <linux@...ck-us.net>
> > > Reported-by: Raul Rangel <rrangel@...gle.com>
> > > BugLink: https://bugs.chromium.org/p/chromium/issues/detail?id=1114800
> > > Link: https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/CAHQZ30BnfX+gxjPm1DUd5psOTqbyDh4EJE=2=VAMW_VDafctkA@mail.gmail.com/T/#u
> > 
> > "Link:" tag should point to the mail that is applied using git am.
> > I am not sure if there is a tag for related discussion in another
> > mail threads.
> 
> Yes, that's a good point. I wonder if we can slightly change that
> rule. That link points to a thread where we discussed various
> approaches to the problem, what would work, what wouldn't and why;
> there is some valuable feedback there. The "8250-fix-locks-v2.patch"
> link, on the other hand, points to nothing valuable.

I agree that the other link is more valuable than the final one.
I just did not want to break a common rule. But it seems that
there already are commits with more Link: tags.

> > Sounds reasonable to me.
> > 
> > Andy proposed many changes. Sergey, could you please send v2?
> 
> Sure, I think I sent v2 already.

Ah, I have missed it. It is pushed now.

Best Regards,
Petr