linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v4 0/5] vchiq: Patch to separate platform and cdev code

Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Date:   Fri, 23 Jul 2021 15:31:58 +0200
From:   Stefan Wahren <stefan.wahren@...e.com>
To:     Ojaswin Mujoo <ojaswin98@...il.com>,
        Greg KH <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
Cc:     nsaenz@...nel.org, dan.carpenter@...cle.com, phil@...pberrypi.com,
        linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
        linux-staging@...ts.linux.dev, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 0/5] vchiq: Patch to separate platform and cdev code

Am 23.07.21 um 14:59 schrieb Ojaswin Mujoo:
> On Fri, Jul 23, 2021 at 01:02:41PM +0200, Greg KH wrote:
>> On Wed, Jul 21, 2021 at 09:50:48PM +0530, Ojaswin Mujoo wrote:
>>> Hello,
>>>
>>> This patchset adderesses the TODO item number 10 specified at:
>>>
>>>     drivers/staging/vc04-services/interface/TODO
>>>
>>> For reference, the task is:
>>>
>>>     10) Reorganize file structure: Move char driver to it's own file and join
>>>     both platform files
>>>
>>>     The cdev is defined alongside with the platform code in vchiq_arm.c. It
>>>     would be nice to completely decouple it from the actual core code. For
>>>     instance to be able to use bcm2835-audio without having /dev/vchiq created.
>>>     One could argue it's better for security reasons or general cleanliness. It
>>>     could even be interesting to create two different kernel modules, something
>>>     the likes of vchiq-core.ko and vchiq-dev.ko. This would also ease the
>>>     upstreaming process.
>>>
>>> A summary of the patches is as follows:
>>>
>>> - Patch 1: Move cdev init code into a function
>>> - Patch 2: Shift some devlarations from vchiq_arm.c to vchiq_arm.h for
>>>            sharing
>>> - Patch 3: Move vchiq cdev init code from vchiq_arm.c into vchiq_dev.c
>>> - Patch 4: Decouple cdev code by defining a Kconfig entry to allow
>>>            optional compilation of it.
>>> - Patch 5: Merge code in vchiq_2835_arm.c to vchiq_arm.c
>>>
>>> Changes since v3 [2]:
>>>
>>> * In Patch 5, replace forward declarations of some of the functions with
>>>   function definition 
>> You dropped the reviews of others, so now I need to wait for them again
>> :(
>>
> Hello Greg,
>
> Apologies for that, I was under the impression that a new version
> needed a separate review :(
No, just the patches which had functional changes.
> If its okay, I can alternately resubmit this (as v5?) with Stefan's
> Reviewed-By tags on unchanged commits intact. Let me know if that's okay
> or if its better to wait out.

No, please don't resubmit. I will do the review soon.

Regards
Stefan

>
> Thank you!
> Ojaswin
>
> _______________________________________________
> linux-arm-kernel mailing list
> linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org
> http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel

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