linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 5/7] memory: renesas-rpc-if: Move resource acquisition to .probe()

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Thu, 30 Jun 2022 10:48:46 +0200
From:   Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski@...aro.org>
To:     Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@...ux-m68k.org>
Cc:     Vignesh Raghavendra <vigneshr@...com>,
        Sergey Shtylyov <s.shtylyov@....ru>,
        Wolfram Sang <wsa+renesas@...g-engineering.com>,
        Lad Prabhakar <prabhakar.mahadev-lad.rj@...renesas.com>,
        Miquel Raynal <miquel.raynal@...tlin.com>,
        Richard Weinberger <richard@....at>,
        Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org>,
        MTD Maling List <linux-mtd@...ts.infradead.org>,
        Linux-Renesas <linux-renesas-soc@...r.kernel.org>,
        linux-spi <linux-spi@...r.kernel.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 5/7] memory: renesas-rpc-if: Move resource acquisition to
 .probe()

On 29/06/2022 20:48, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
>>
>> You sure? Except rebasing I don't see that. rpcif_sw_init() received the
>> rpcif so it had access to all fields.
> 
> Yes I am, don't be misguided by the name of the local variable.
> The rpcif structure is allocated by the HF or SPI child driver,
> and thus not available in the RPC core driver's .probe() function.
> The rpc_priv structure (as of patch 4) is allocated by the RPC core driver.
> 
>>> I agree patches 1-3 could be moved later, if you think it is worthwhile.
>>
>> This would not be enough, it has to be first patch to be backportable.
> 
> I can make it second? ;-)

Why? The point is that this commit should have Fixes or Cc-stable tag.
If you make it depending on other non-backportable commit, stable folks
cannot pull it automatically.

> Note that that still precludes (easily) backporting s2ram support.

But S2R is a feature so it won't be backported...

Best regards,
Krzysztof