linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH V15 00/15] irqchip: Add LoongArch-related irqchip drivers

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]

Date:   Mon, 18 Jul 2022 07:43:20 +0100
From:   Marc Zyngier <maz@...nel.org>
To:     Huacai Chen <chenhuacai@...nel.org>
Cc:     Jianmin Lv <lvjianmin@...ngson.cn>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, loongarch@...ts.linux.dev,
        Hanjun Guo <guohanjun@...wei.com>,
        Lorenzo Pieralisi <lorenzo.pieralisi@....com>,
        Jiaxun Yang <jiaxun.yang@...goat.com>,
        Huacai Chen <chenhuacai@...ngson.cn>
Subject: Re: [PATCH V15 00/15] irqchip: Add LoongArch-related irqchip drivers

On Mon, 18 Jul 2022 03:38:09 +0100,
Huacai Chen <chenhuacai@...nel.org> wrote:
> 
> Hi, Marc,
> 
> On Sun, Jul 17, 2022 at 10:43 PM Marc Zyngier <maz@...nel.org> wrote:
> >
> > On Sun, 17 Jul 2022 15:08:14 +0100,
> > Huacai Chen <chenhuacai@...nel.org> wrote:
> > >
> > > Hi, Marc, Jianmin,
> > >
> > > I have an idea but I don't know whether it is acceptable: Marc gives
> > > an Acked-by for the whole series, then this irqchip series goes
> > > through the loongarch tree together with the PCI patches, then we
> > > don't need other hacks except the ACPI definitions.
> >
> > Not sure how this solves the original problem. PCI should never be
> > mandatory (it is actually super useful to be able to build a very
> > small kernel without too many drivers), and there shouldn't be
> > configurations where the kernel doesn't build.
> Now, the pci-loongson controller code (A) is in the PCI tree, the pci
> enablement code (B) is in the LoongArch tree, and the irqchip code (C)
> is in the irqchip tree. If the order for upstream is (A) --> (B) -->
> (C), there will be no build error. My above idea is to make sure the
> order of (B) and (C) is controlled in the same tree. PCI/MSI is a
> mandatory requirement for LoongArch, so I want to avoid some
> unnecessary #ifdefs.
>
> >
> > It is also my own responsibility to merge these things, and I'd rather
> > not delegate this, specially as it touches a bunch of other
> > subsystems.
> I know, this is reasonable. Then if we can control the order of
> (A)(B)(C) in three trees, the build error can be avoided in the
> linux-next tree.

This would require stable branches between all three trees, as we
don't control the *order* of the merges. I'd have to carry (A) and (B)
as part of (C), which is really over the top.

Just queue a patch to remove the #ifdef once we're at -rc1 and that
things have settled down. This will be simpler for everyone, and will
allow everyone to have a clean tree without dragging tons of extra
patches.

	M.

-- 
Without deviation from the norm, progress is not possible.