linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2] Documentation/auxiliary_bus: Clarify auxiliary

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: <20211128053224.GU3538886@iweiny-DESK2.sc.intel.com>
Date:   Sat, 27 Nov 2021 21:32:24 -0800
From:   Ira Weiny <ira.weiny@...el.com>
To:     Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
Cc:     Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>,
        Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@...el.com>,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Dave Jiang <dave.jiang@...el.com>,
        linux-doc@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] Documentation/auxiliary_bus: Clarify auxiliary_device
 creation

On Fri, Nov 26, 2021 at 05:16:54PM +0100, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 02, 2021 at 03:53:10PM -0700, ira.weiny@...el.com wrote:
> > From: Ira Weiny <ira.weiny@...el.com>
> > 
> > The documentation for creating an auxiliary device is a 3 step not a 2
> > step process.  Specifically the requirements of setting the name, id,
> > dev.release, and dev.parent fields was not clear as a precursor to the '2
> > step' process documented.
> > 
> > Clarify by declaring this a 3 step process starting with setting the
> > fields of struct auxiliary_device correctly.
> > 
> > Also add some sample code and tie the change into the rest of the
> > documentation.
> > 
> > Reviewed-by: Dave Jiang <dave.jiang@...el.com>
> > Signed-off-by: Ira Weiny <ira.weiny@...el.com>
> > 
> > ---
> > Changes from V1:
> > 	From Jonathan
> > 		Fix auxiliary spelling
> > ---
> >  Documentation/driver-api/auxiliary_bus.rst | 77 +++++++++++++++++-----
> >  1 file changed, 59 insertions(+), 18 deletions(-)
> 
> Can you please resend the whole series, trying to just resend one patch
> in the middle is horrible for our tools and to try to figure this out.

Sorry I did not realize this was an issue.  Other maintainers have been ok with
this because I think B4 works fine with this?

> 
> Would you like to have to unwind this?  Please make it simple for
> maintainers to review and if ok, apply your changes.

Regardless, I was planning on resending this as part of the c files as you
requested before.  Did you still want me to make that conversion?

Or I can resend this and make the c conversion as a follow on patch?

Ira

> 
> thanks,
> 
> greg k-h