linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v3 0/6] Apple M1 (Pro/Max) NVMe driver

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Fri, 29 Apr 2022 22:33:52 +0200
From:   Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>
To:     Sven Peter <sven@...npeter.dev>
Cc:     "hch@....de" <hch@....de>, Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>,
        Hector Martin <marcan@...can.st>,
        Alyssa Rosenzweig <alyssa@...enzweig.io>,
        Rob Herring <robh+dt@...nel.org>,
        Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk+dt@...nel.org>,
        Keith Busch <kbusch@...nel.org>, "axboe@...com" <axboe@...com>,
        "sagi@...mberg.me" <sagi@...mberg.me>,
        Marc Zyngier <maz@...nel.org>, Janne Grunau <j@...nau.net>,
        DTML <devicetree@...r.kernel.org>,
        Linux ARM <linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        linux-nvme@...ts.infradead.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 0/6] Apple M1 (Pro/Max) NVMe driver

On Fri, Apr 29, 2022 at 6:37 PM Sven Peter <sven@...npeter.dev> wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 28, 2022, at 16:24, hch@....de wrote:
> > On Wed, Apr 27, 2022 at 07:39:49PM +0200, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> >> The usual trick is to have a branch with the shared patches and have
> >> that pulled into every other tree that needs these, but make sure you never
> >> rebase. In this case, you could have something like
> >>
> >> a) rtkit driver in a shared branch (private only)
> >> b) thunderbolt driver based on branch a), merged through
> >>      thunderbolt/usb/pci tree (I don't know who is responsible here)
> >> c) sart driver based on branch a), merged through soc tree
> >> d) nvme driver based on branch c), merged through nvme tree
> >>
> >> since the commit hashes are all identical, each patch only shows up in
> >> the git tree once, but you get a somewhat funny history.
> >
> > Given that the nvme driver is just addition of new code I'm perfectly
> > fine with sending it through whatever tree is most convenient.
>
> So If I understand all this correctly either
>         1) I send a pull request with rtkit+sart to Arnd/soc@ followed by
>            a pull request with the same commits + the nvme driver to
>            Christoph/nvme to make sure the commit hashes in both trees
>            are the same.
> or
>         2) I send a pull request with rtkit+sart+nvme to soc@ and we
>            take the entire driver through there with Christoph's ack
>            if Arnd is fine with carrying it as well.
>
> In either case SMC (or thunderbolt if I finish in time) can also be based
> on the same rtkit commit and could go into 5.19 as well.
> I don't have any preference here (not that my opinion matters much
> for this decision anyway :-))

Correct, those are both ok.

        Arnd