linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v4 0/7] Provide and use generic_handle_irq

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: <YgvJ1fCUYmaV0Mbx@google.com>
Date:   Tue, 15 Feb 2022 15:42:13 +0000
From:   Lee Jones <lee.jones@...aro.org>
To:     Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@...utronix.de>
Cc:     greybus-dev@...ts.linaro.org, linux-i2c@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-staging@...ts.linux.dev,
        linux-usb@...r.kernel.org, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
        "David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
        Alex Elder <elder@...nel.org>, Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>,
        Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
        Hans de Goede <hdegoede@...hat.com>,
        Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>,
        Johan Hovold <johan@...nel.org>,
        Rui Miguel Silva <rmfrfs@...il.com>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        UNGLinuxDriver@...rochip.com, Wolfram Sang <wsa@...nel.org>,
        Woojung Huh <woojung.huh@...rochip.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 0/7] Provide and use generic_handle_irq_safe() where
 appropriate.

On Tue, 15 Feb 2022, Sebastian Andrzej Siewior wrote:

> On 2022-02-15 15:16:36 [+0000], Lee Jones wrote:
> > On Tue, 15 Feb 2022, Sebastian Andrzej Siewior wrote:
> > 
> > > On 2022-02-15 14:36:01 [+0000], Lee Jones wrote:
> > > > Do we really need to coordinate this series cross-subsystem?
> > > 
> > > I would suggest to merge it via irq subsystem but I leave the logistics
> > > to tglx.
> > 
> > Could you answer by other questions too please?
> 
> I don't think that I can answer them. I said I leave the logistics to
> tglx.
> 
> This can go via one merge via irq. This can also go differently i.e.
> feature branch on top of 5.17-rc1 (with 1/7) which is merge into each
> subsystem and then the "feature" on top.

Apologies for the confusion.

I'm not asking you about merge strategies.

We can handle that without issue.

> Either way it remains bisect-able since each driver is changed
> individually. There is no need to merge them in one go but since it is
> that small it probably makes sense. But I don't do the logistics here.

Okay, this is what I was asking.

So there aren't any hard dependencies between the driver changes?

Only the drivers are dependent on the API.

So, if we choose to do so, we can merge the API and then subsequently
add the users one by one into their respective subsystem, in any
order.  This would save on creating an immutable topic branch which we
all pull from.

What is your preference Thomas?

-- 
Lee Jones [李琼斯]
Principal Technical Lead - Developer Services
Linaro.org │ Open source software for Arm SoCs
Follow Linaro: Facebook | Twitter | Blog