linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 3/5] hwmon: (aquacomputer_d5next) Add temperature offset control for Aquaero

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:   Sat, 11 Feb 2023 19:54:05 +0100
From:   Aleksa Savic <savicaleksa83@...il.com>
To:     Guenter Roeck <linux@...ck-us.net>,
        Leonard Anderweit <leonard.anderweit@...il.com>,
        linux-hwmon@...r.kernel.org
Cc:     savicaleksa83@...il.com, Jack Doan <me@...kdoan.com>,
        Jean Delvare <jdelvare@...e.com>,
        Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>, linux-doc@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/5] hwmon: (aquacomputer_d5next) Add temperature offset
 control for Aquaero

On 2023-02-11 19:08:27 GMT+01:00, Guenter Roeck wrote:
> 
> aquaero is already supported, and the checksum is so far generated
> and sent. Is it ignored ? Also, is it guaranteed that _all_ aquero devices
> don't need it ?

Reading its sensors is currently supported, not writing to it (before these
patches).

The checksum is ignored and not needed for either aquaero 5 (which Leonard has)
nor 6 (which I have).

> 
> If it is not needed and ignored, does it really add value to selectively drop it ?

I think we can indeed remove that check.

Thanks,
Aleksa

> 
> Either case, this change is not mentioned in the commit log, and it
> violates the "one logical change per patch" rule. Please split it into
> a separate patch and explain why the change is needed.
> 
> Another change to separate is the introduction of ctrl_report_id
> and the secondary_ctrl_report variables, which is also done silently
> and not explained. That should also be a separate patch to simplify
> review.
> 
> Thanks,
> Guenter