linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH REBASE 0/3] atomisp: Rebased fixes

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20200922132727.GG4282@kadam>
Date:   Tue, 22 Sep 2020 16:27:27 +0300
From:   Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@...cle.com>
To:     Alex Dewar <alex.dewar90@...il.com>
Cc:     Mauro Carvalho Chehab <mchehab@...nel.org>,
        devel@...verdev.osuosl.org,
        Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        Sakari Ailus <sakari.ailus@...ux.intel.com>,
        Alan Cox <alan@...ux.intel.com>, linux-media@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH REBASE 0/3] atomisp: Rebased fixes

On Tue, Sep 22, 2020 at 12:02:33PM +0100, Alex Dewar wrote:
> On 22/09/2020 10:27, Mauro Carvalho Chehab wrote:
> > Em Tue, 22 Sep 2020 10:09:07 +0100
> > Alex Dewar <alex.dewar90@...il.com> escreveu:
> > 
> > > Hi Mauro,
> > > 
> > > I've rebased the patches now, but there is a slight hiccup. For patches 2
> > > and 3 of this series there will now be a conflict with commit 9289cdf39992
> > > ("staging: media: atomisp: Convert to GPIO descriptors") in Greg's tree.
> > > 
> > > I'm not sure what the best way to handle this is? The merge conflicts
> > > will be trivial (due to a conversion between the gpio_* and gpiod_*
> > > APIs), but I could alternatively send these last two patches in via
> > > Greg's tree if that's easier for people. Let me know what works.
> > Maybe the best would be to re-send those after the merge window, when
> > both patches will arrive upstream.
> > 
> > Thanks,
> > Mauro
> That sounds more sensible. I've also just noticed that I introduced a bug in
> the first patch when rebasing it :-/, so let's hold off on the whole series
> and I'll do a proper tidy and resend after the next merge window.

Is the bug the memory leak if lm3554_platform_data_func() fails?

regards,
dan carpenter