linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] spi: Merge spi_controller.{slave,target}

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: <166757570101.379896.16321881884283599927.b4-ty@kernel.org>
Date:   Fri, 04 Nov 2022 15:28:21 +0000
From:   Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org>
To:     Yang Yingliang <yangyingliang@...wei.com>,
        Geert Uytterhoeven <geert+renesas@...der.be>
Cc:     linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-spi@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] spi: Merge spi_controller.{slave,target}_abort()

On Fri, 4 Nov 2022 11:01:27 +0100, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
> Mixing SPI slave/target handlers and SPI slave/target controllers using
> legacy and modern naming does not work well: there are now two different
> callbacks for aborting a slave/target operation, of which only one is
> populated, while spi_{slave,target}_abort() check and use only one,
> which may be the unpopulated one.
> 
> Fix this by merging the slave/target abort callbacks into a single
> callback using a union, like is already done for the slave/target flags.
> 
> [...]

Applied to

   https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/broonie/spi.git for-next

Thanks!

[1/1] spi: Merge spi_controller.{slave,target}_abort()
      commit: 6c6871cdaef96361f6b79a3e45d451a6475df4d6

All being well this means that it will be integrated into the linux-next
tree (usually sometime in the next 24 hours) and sent to Linus during
the next merge window (or sooner if it is a bug fix), however if
problems are discovered then the patch may be dropped or reverted.

You may get further e-mails resulting from automated or manual testing
and review of the tree, please engage with people reporting problems and
send followup patches addressing any issues that are reported if needed.

If any updates are required or you are submitting further changes they
should be sent as incremental updates against current git, existing
patches will not be replaced.

Please add any relevant lists and maintainers to the CCs when replying
to this mail.

Thanks,
Mark