linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] firmware: arm_scmi: Fix duplicate workqueue name

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: <25ae326c-eceb-5479-8910-b8ab427ae192@gmail.com>
Date:   Wed, 14 Oct 2020 11:11:10 -0700
From:   Florian Fainelli <f.fainelli@...il.com>
To:     Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@....com>
Cc:     Cristian Marussi <cristian.marussi@....com>,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
        Jonathan Cameron <Jonathan.Cameron@...wei.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] firmware: arm_scmi: Fix duplicate workqueue name

On 10/14/20 10:39 AM, Sudeep Holla wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 14, 2020 at 10:13:04AM -0700, Florian Fainelli wrote:
>> On 10/14/20 9:18 AM, Sudeep Holla wrote:
>>> On Wed, Oct 14, 2020 at 02:48:19PM +0100, Cristian Marussi wrote:
>>>
>>> [...]
>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> I have pushed a version with above change [1], please check if you are
>>>>> happy with that ?
>>>>>
>>>>> [1] https://git.kernel.org/sudeep.holla/linux/c/b2cd15549b
>>>>
>>>> I agree with the need to retain _notify name, but I'm not so sure about
>>>> the above patch...which is:
>>>>
>>>
>>> I agree, I thought about it and just cooked up this as a quick solution.
>>> I will move to that, even I wasn't happy with this TBH.
>>
>> The reason why I went with just dev_name() was such that the workqueue
>> name and the device nodes under /sys would strictly match, which helps
>> as an user, and also it avoided the temporary buffer and its size
>> limitations.
> 
> Agreed. I just showed that as example and was hoping to use some nice
> kstr* APIs to achieve what I wanted but soon realised there exists none.
> So as replied earlier, I will take this change as it for now. Let us
> address this in future if it becomes an issue.
> 
> Thanks for quick test, we now know whom to bother if we need more testing
> 😉 as out internal platforms are not that great to cover all the aspects
> we add in the spec and even in the kernel.

No problem! I still need to find the time to upgrade the ATF equivalent
implementation to support SCMI 3.0, have not done that just yet.
-- 
Florian