linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2] i2c-pasemi: PASemi I2C controller IRQ enablement

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:   Sun,  2 Oct 2022 10:07:06 -0400
From:   Arminder Singh <arminders208@...look.com>
To:     wsa@...nel.org
Cc:     alyssa@...enzweig.io, arminders208@...look.com,
        asahi@...ts.linux.dev, benh@...nel.crashing.org,
        chzigotzky@...osoft.de, darren@...vens-zone.net,
        linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, linux-i2c@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org,
        marcan@...can.st, mpe@...erman.id.au, paulus@...ba.org,
        sven@...npeter.dev
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] i2c-pasemi: PASemi I2C controller IRQ enablement

Hi,

>  #define REG_MTXFIFO	0x00
>  #define REG_MRXFIFO	0x04
>  #define REG_SMSTA	0x14
> +#define REG_IMASK   0x18

> This doesn't seem to be aligned correctly, this file seems to use a tab
> to separate the register name and the offset and you used spaces here.

> @@ -15,7 +16,11 @@ struct pasemi_smbus {
>  	struct i2c_adapter	 adapter;
>  	void __iomem		*ioaddr;
>  	unsigned int		 clk_div;
> -	int			 hw_rev;
> +	int			         hw_rev;
> +	int                  use_irq;
> +	struct completion    irq_completion;

> This doesn't seem to be aligned correctly and the hw_rev line
> doesn't have to be changed.

I'm sorry for the alignment issues in the patch, I genuinely didn't notice
them as from the perspective of my primary editor (Visual Studio Code)
the entries were aligned. I just saw them when opening the files in
nano.

Does fixing the alignment issues and the commit description justify a v3
of the patch or should the minor fixes go out as a "resend"? Just not sure
in this particular case as the fixes seem to be very minor ones.

Thanks,
Arminder