linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] EDAC/dmc520: Don't print an error for each unconfigured interrupt line

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: <YefnuCPwMq5V2lgl@kroah.com>
Date:   Wed, 19 Jan 2022 11:28:08 +0100
From:   Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
To:     Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>
Cc:     Tyler Hicks <tyhicks@...ux.microsoft.com>,
        Sasha Levin <sashal@...nel.org>,
        Lei Wang <lewan@...rosoft.com>,
        Tony Luck <tony.luck@...el.com>,
        Mauro Carvalho Chehab <mchehab@...nel.org>,
        Sinan Kaya <okaya@...nel.org>,
        Shiping Ji <shiping.linux@...il.com>,
        James Morse <james.morse@....com>,
        Robert Richter <rric@...nel.org>, linux-edac@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] EDAC/dmc520: Don't print an error for each unconfigured
 interrupt line

On Wed, Jan 19, 2022 at 10:37:51AM +0100, Borislav Petkov wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 19, 2022 at 10:17:52AM +0100, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
> > For this specific change, I do NOT think it should be backported at all,
> > mostly for the reason that people are still arguing over the whole
> > platform_get_*_optional() mess that we currently have.  Let's not go and
> > backport anything right now to stable trees until we have all of that
> > sorted out, as it looks like it all might be changing again.  See:
> > 	https://lore.kernel.org/r/20220110195449.12448-1-s.shtylyov@omp.ru
> > for all of the gory details and the 300+ emails written on the topic so
> > far.
> 
> It sounds to me I should not even take this patch upstream yet,
> considering that's still ongoing...

Yes, I would not take that just yet at all.  Let's let the api argument
settle down a bit first.

thanks,

greg k-h