linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] i2c: Use u8 type in i2c transfer calls

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]

Message-ID: <20220731134347.19fcfbe7@jic23-huawei>
Date:   Sun, 31 Jul 2022 13:43:47 +0100
From:   Jonathan Cameron <jic23@...nel.org>
To:     Jason Gerecke <killertofu@...il.com>
Cc:     Andy Shevchenko <andy.shevchenko@...il.com>,
        Lars-Peter Clausen <lars@...afoo.de>,
        Wolfram Sang <wsa-dev@...g-engineering.com>,
        linux-i2c <linux-i2c@...r.kernel.org>,
        Ping Cheng <pinglinux@...il.com>,
        "Tobita, Tatsunosuke" <tatsunosuke.tobita@...om.com>,
        Jason Gerecke <jason.gerecke@...om.com>, llvm@...ts.linux.dev,
        kbuild-all@...ts.01.org, linux-iio <linux-iio@...r.kernel.org>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] i2c: Use u8 type in i2c transfer calls

On Thu, 28 Jul 2022 15:48:59 -0700
Jason Gerecke <killertofu@...il.com> wrote:

> On Thu, Jul 28, 2022 at 1:48 PM Andy Shevchenko
> <andy.shevchenko@...il.com> wrote:
> >
> > On Thu, Jul 28, 2022 at 4:30 PM Jason Gerecke <killertofu@...il.com> wrote:  
> > > On Wed, Jul 20, 2022 at 12:01 PM Jason Gerecke <killertofu@...il.com> wrote:  
> > > > On Tue, Jul 19, 2022 at 5:21 PM kernel test robot <rong.a.chen@...el.com> wrote:  
> >  
> > > > Writing a patch to fix the new warnings generated by my I2C patch is
> > > > simple enough, but I'd like some help coordinating getting both
> > > > patches landed. Should I wait for the I2C patch to land in "for-next"
> > > > before sending the IIO fix, or would it be preferred to send the IIO
> > > > fix right now so that both patches can be reviewed simultaneously?  
> > >
> > > It's been pretty quiet, so asking again for any thoughts on how to
> > > best address this tangle...  
> >
> > The rule of thumb is not to introduce an additional warning or compile error.
> > I haven't looked deeply into this case, but it smells to me as if you need a new
> > version of your initial patch that includes a fix to IIO.
> >
> >
> > --
> > With Best Regards,
> > Andy Shevchenko  
> 
> Thanks! Since the patch would touch both IIO and I2C I assume I would
> submit it to both mailinglists. And that whichever maintainer gets to
> it first would just give their Reviewed-by (if all looks good) and the
> second applies the Signed-off-by and handles the merge?
> 
> I'll work on the updated combined patch...

I suspect this will be likely to create merge conflicts, so submit it like
that and I'll probably ask Wolfram to do an immutable branch that I can
then pull into IIO.  Hence we'll have exactly the same commits (IDs and all)
in both IIO and I2C trees.

Jonathan

> 
> Jason