linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 02/11] mm: ioremap: fixup the physical address and page prot

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:   Tue, 23 Aug 2022 09:13:13 +0800
From:   Baoquan He <bhe@...hat.com>
To:     Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>
Cc:     linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-mm@...ck.org,
        akpm@...ux-foundation.org, agordeev@...ux.ibm.com,
        wangkefeng.wang@...wei.com, linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 02/11] mm: ioremap: fixup the physical address and
 page prot

On 08/20/22 at 11:54pm, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> > -void __iomem *arch_ioremap(phys_addr_t phys_addr, size_t size, unsigned long prot);
> > +void __iomem *
> > +arch_ioremap(phys_addr_t *paddr, size_t size, unsigned long *prot_val);
> 
> It seems a bit odd to do this in two steps vs just doing the entire
> change in the first patch.  Any good reason for that?

I will merge patch 1~2 or 1~3 into patch 1. Earlier, I wrote the reason
as below paragraph in cover letter of v1 post. Now it seems not so hard
to tell and understand.

====
For patch 1~3, I don't merge them because I made them in different
rounds of changing. And splitting them makes me easily describe the
intention and make review easier. I can merge them after v1 reviewing
if anyone thinks they should be merged.
====