linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v9 00/20] gpio: cdev: add uAPI v2

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]

Message-ID: <20200924080014.GD17562@sol>
Date:   Thu, 24 Sep 2020 16:00:14 +0800
From:   Kent Gibson <warthog618@...il.com>
To:     Andy Shevchenko <andy.shevchenko@...il.com>
Cc:     Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        "open list:GPIO SUBSYSTEM" <linux-gpio@...r.kernel.org>,
        Bartosz Golaszewski <bgolaszewski@...libre.com>,
        Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@...aro.org>,
        Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v9 00/20] gpio: cdev: add uAPI v2

On Wed, Sep 23, 2020 at 07:35:30PM +0300, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 22, 2020 at 5:34 AM Kent Gibson <warthog618@...il.com> wrote:
> >
> > This patchset defines and implements a new version of the
> > GPIO CDEV uAPI to address existing 32/64-bit alignment issues, add
> > support for debounce, event sequence numbers, and allow for requested
> > lines with different configurations.
> > It provides some future proofing by adding optional configuration fields
> > and padding reserved for future use.
> >
> > The series can be partitioned into three blocks; the first two patches
> > are minor fixes that impact later patches, the next eleven contain the
> > v2 uAPI definition and implementation, and the final seven port the GPIO
> > tools to the v2 uAPI and extend them to use new uAPI features.
> >
> > The more complicated patches include their own commentary where
> > appropriate.
> 
> For tools (there are minor comments, which not prevent to have a tag):
> Reviewed-by: Andy Shevchenko <andy.shevchenko@...il.com>
> 
> For the rest I gave some comments but most of them are simply to
> address. The uAPI definition I agree with after Arnd's comment. I
> don't see big impediments to having this for v5.10.
> 
> Thanks!
> 

Thanks for your review - I nearly always learn something new from them,
and you can be picky pain in the arse at times - which is a good thing
for a reviewer. Apart from the pain in the arse ;-).

Cheers,
Kent.