| 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
| ||
|
Message-ID: <b13a487f-7437-0278-6a9e-f10a5273065b@redhat.com>
Date: Tue, 19 Jan 2021 12:49:28 -0800
From: Tom Rix <trix@...hat.com>
To: Russ Weight <russell.h.weight@...el.com>, mdf@...nel.org,
lee.jones@...aro.org, linux-fpga@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Cc: lgoncalv@...hat.com, yilun.xu@...el.com, hao.wu@...el.com,
matthew.gerlach@...el.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v7 0/6] Intel MAX10 BMC Secure Update Driver
On 1/5/21 3:08 PM, Russ Weight wrote:
...
> .../testing/sysfs-driver-intel-m10-bmc-secure | 61 ++
> MAINTAINERS | 2 +
> drivers/fpga/Kconfig | 11 +
> drivers/fpga/Makefile | 3 +
> drivers/fpga/intel-m10-bmc-secure.c | 543 ++++++++++++++++++
> include/linux/mfd/intel-m10-bmc.h | 85 +++
I am having trouble pulling this into my testing branch where i am tracking some other changes to intel-m10-bmc.h
https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20210114231648.199685-1-russell.h.weight@intel.com/
https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/1609999628-12748-3-git-send-email-yilun.xu@intel.com/
so I am wondering if it makes sense to split the intel-m10-bmc.h change out of this patchset and sent as a single patch to mfd subsystem ? The change is a bunch of #defines that don't do anything on their own, but will conflict with other similar additions to the h file.
Tom
> 6 files changed, 705 insertions(+)
> create mode 100644 Documentation/ABI/testing/sysfs-driver-intel-m10-bmc-secure
> create mode 100644 drivers/fpga/intel-m10-bmc-secure.c
>
Powered by blists - more mailing lists