linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] iio: core: return ENODEV if ioctl is unknown

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: <YJjXU/mBKnmknItg@kroah.com>
Date:   Mon, 10 May 2021 08:48:51 +0200
From:   Greg KH <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
To:     Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@...aro.org>
Cc:     Jonathan Cameron <jic23@...nel.org>,
        Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Alexandru Ardelean <aardelean@...iqon.com>,
        linux-iio <linux-iio@...r.kernel.org>,
        linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Lars-Peter Clausen <lars@...afoo.de>,
        Paul Cercueil <paul@...pouillou.net>,
        Nuno Sa <nuno.sa@...log.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] iio: core: return ENODEV if ioctl is unknown

On Sun, May 09, 2021 at 05:29:10PM +0200, Linus Walleij wrote:
> On Sun, May 9, 2021 at 12:18 PM Jonathan Cameron <jic23@...nel.org> wrote:
> > On Sat, 8 May 2021 20:21:08 +0200
> > Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@...aro.org> wrote:
> 
> > > Unless you really like to base your work on Gregs tree for
> > > some reason or other, that is.
> >
> > Definitely appreciate Greg's help (and patience), but no
> > particularly strong reason to waste his time dealing with my
> > mess ups. Hopefully they'll reduce now IIO trees are going directly
> > into linux-next though.
> 
> I'd suggest to move to sending pulls to Torvalds directly
> for IIO to cut the intermediary staging tree step, since
> now the subsystem is pretty large and see a bunch of
> frequent fixes that need an express path to Torvalds.
> 
> Pushing through Greg per se isn't really the problem,
> I think the problem is that IIO is going through the
> staging tree which (I guess) isn't a high priority activity
> and not expected to carry any serious critical fixes and
> I guess this can cause lags.
> 
> Maybe Greg has some other branch to take in IIO
> fixes and for-next but I don't really see the point.

I can take IIO changes in my char/misc tree like many other driver
subsystems go, if the staging portions are not involved.  Otherwise, I
really don't see the problem with it as-is, what problems is this
causing at the moment?

thanks,

greg k-h