linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 0/6] ACPI: New helper function acpi_dev_get_memory

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:   Fri, 19 Aug 2022 12:33:12 +0200
From:   Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
To:     Heikki Krogerus <heikki.krogerus@...ux.intel.com>
Cc:     "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@...nel.org>,
        Utkarsh Patel <utkarsh.h.patel@...el.com>,
        rajmohan.mani@...el.com, linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-usb@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/6] ACPI: New helper function
 acpi_dev_get_memory_resources() and a new ACPI ID

On Fri, Aug 19, 2022 at 01:02:30PM +0300, Heikki Krogerus wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> On Thu, Aug 18, 2022 at 09:12:46PM +0200, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
> > On Tue, Aug 16, 2022 at 01:16:23PM +0300, Heikki Krogerus wrote:
> > > Hi,
> > > 
> > > The helper function returns all memory resources described for a
> > > device regardless of the ACPI descriptor type (as long as it's
> > > memory), but the first patch introduces new ACPI ID for the IOM
> > > controller on Intel Meteor Lake and also separately modifies the
> > > driver so that it can get the memory resource from Address Space
> > > Resource Descriptor.
> > > 
> > > An alternative would have been to introduce that helper function first
> > > so we would not need to modify the driver when the new ID is added,
> > > but then the helper would also need to be applied to the stable kernel
> > > releases, and that does not feel necessary or appropriate in this
> > > case, at least not IMO.
> > > 
> > > So that's why I'm proposing here that we first add the ID, and only
> > > after that introduce the helper, and only for mainline. That way the
> > > patch introducing the ID is the only that goes to the stable releases.
> > > 
> > > If that's okay, and these don't have any other problems, I assume it's
> > > OK if Rafael takes all of these, including the ID?
> > 
> > I took the id now, for 6.0-final as it seems to be totally independant
> > of the other commits (otherwise you would not have tagged it for the
> > stable tree.)
> > 
> > The remainder should probably be resent and send through the acpi tree.
> 
> Okay. The last patch depends on that ID patch, so Rafael, you need to
> handle that conflict with immutable branch I guess. Or should we just
> skip that patch for now?

You can wait for -rc3 or so which should have that commit in it.

thanks,

greg k-h