linux-kernel - Re: [RESEND PATCH v5 1/2] dmaengine: mxs: use platform_driver

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: <YysIkA1zcql2JysN@matsya>
Date:   Wed, 21 Sep 2022 18:20:24 +0530
From:   Vinod Koul <vkoul@...nel.org>
To:     Sascha Hauer <s.hauer@...gutronix.de>
Cc:     Dario Binacchi <dario.binacchi@...rulasolutions.com>,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-amarula@...rulasolutions.com,
        Michael Trimarchi <michael@...rulasolutions.com>,
        stable@...r.kernel.org, Fabio Estevam <festevam@...il.com>,
        NXP Linux Team <linux-imx@....com>,
        Pengutronix Kernel Team <kernel@...gutronix.de>,
        Shawn Guo <shawnguo@...nel.org>, dmaengine@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org
Subject: Re: [RESEND PATCH v5 1/2] dmaengine: mxs: use
 platform_driver_register

On 21-09-22, 12:39, Sascha Hauer wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 21, 2022 at 08:53:23AM +0530, Vinod Koul wrote:
> > On 20-09-22, 19:10, Dario Binacchi wrote:

> > > > How I see it v3 of this patch is perfectly fine and should be taken
> > > > instead of this one. I just commented that to v3.
> > > >
> > > > Not sure if Vinod would take v3, or if you should resend v3 as v6
> > > > instead. If you do, you can add my Acked-by.
> > > >
> > > > Vinod, please let us know what you prefer.
> > > 
> > > Could you please let me know how to proceed? This patch has been pending for
> > > a while and it's a real shame as the change is minimal and fixes a
> > > real issue that is
> > > still present in the mainline and stable kernels.
> > 
> > Ooops, Somehow this seems to have really slipped. Sorry I owe you an
> > apology for this
> > 
> > I am still not sure of this patch yet, lets get it right and merged
> > quickly. I will send my review later today
> 
> I just realized that unlike what I said v3 of this patch is still wrong
> as it leaves the __init annotation on mxs_dma_init() which is called
> from (non __init) mxs_dma_probe(). v3 probably doesn't give a section
> mismatch warning because mxs_dma_init() is inlined.
> 
> Really v2 is the one we should take which is at:

hmmm, looking at the old revs, that does look sane. My question was why
__init change is there, it needs to be documented and if there are two
different reasons, add that

I agree rev 2 is the right things to do and changelog needs to add why
we dropped __init (i dont think this should be a different patchset as
that leads to warnings ...

> https://lore.kernel.org/linux-arm-kernel/20220523132247.1429321-1-dario.binacchi@amarulasolutions.com/T/

-- 
~Vinod