linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 3/3] usb: host: add the xhci offload hooks implementations

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:   Thu, 27 Oct 2022 08:22:49 +0200
From:   Greg KH <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
To:     Albert Wang <albertccwang@...gle.com>
Cc:     mathias.nyman@...el.com, badhri@...gle.com, howardyen@...gle.com,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-usb@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/3] usb: host: add the xhci offload hooks implementations

On Thu, Oct 27, 2022 at 08:40:50AM +0800, Albert Wang wrote:
> Add the offload hooks implementations and call to co-processor for
> offload operations.

You forgot to submit the user for all of these hooks at the same time.

For obvious reasons (and this was raised every time this patch series
has been submitted), we can not take hooks or apis that do not have a
real user of them at the same time.

And you don't want us to do that either, right?  How would you maintain
a chunk of code that has calls to other code that is not even in the
same repo and that you can never seee?  Would you be able to do that?

Again, please read the comments that came up when this was submitted
last time, and work to resolve them before submitting this series again.

I do not see any changes here from the last submission.  If that is
incorrect, then you need to document what changed, as our kernel
documentation asks you to do.

thanks,

greg k-h