linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 0/5] Switchtec Fixes and Improvements

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]

Date:   Fri, 8 Oct 2021 11:23:46 -0600
From:   Logan Gunthorpe <logang@...tatee.com>
To:     Bjorn Helgaas <helgaas@...nel.org>, kelvin.cao@...rochip.com
Cc:     kurt.schwemmer@...rosemi.com, bhelgaas@...gle.com,
        linux-pci@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        kelvincao@...look.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/5] Switchtec Fixes and Improvements

On 2021-10-08 11:05 a.m., Bjorn Helgaas wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 24, 2021 at 11:08:37AM +0000, kelvin.cao@...rochip.com wrote:
>> From: Kelvin Cao <kelvin.cao@...rochip.com>
>>
>> Hi,
>>
>> Please find a bunch of patches for the switchtec driver collected over the
>> last few months.
> 
> Question: Is there a reason this driver should be in drivers/pci/?
> 
> It doesn't use any internal PCI core interfaces, e.g., it doesn't
> include drivers/pci/pci.h, and AFAICT it's really just a driver for a
> PCI device that happens to be a switch.
> 
> I don't really *care* that it's in drivers/pci; I rely on Kurt and
> Logan to review changes.  The only problem it presents for me is that
> I have to write merge commit logs for the changes.  You'd think that
> would be trivial, but since I don't know much about the driver, it
> does end up being work for me.

We did discuss this when it was originally merged.

The main reason we want it in the PCI tree is so that it's in a sensible
spot in the Kconfig hierarchy (under PCI support). Seeing it is still
PCI hardware. Dropping it into the miscellaneous devices mess (or
similar) is less than desirable. Moreover, it's not like the maintainers
for misc have any additional knowledge that would make them better
qualified to merge these changes. In fact, I'm sure they'd have less
knowledge and we wouldn't have gotten to the bottom of this last issue
if it had been a different maintainer.

In the future I'll try to be more careful in my reviews to ensure we
have a better understanding and clearer commit messages. If there's
anything else we can do to make your job easier, please let us know.

Thanks,

Logan