linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] staging: axis-fifo: initialize timeouts in probe only

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Tue, 14 Mar 2023 22:31:21 +0100
From:   "Fabio M. De Francesco" <fmdefrancesco@...il.com>
To:     Khadija Kamran <kamrankhadijadj@...il.com>,
        Alison Schofield <alison.schofield@...el.com>
Cc:     outreachy@...ts.linux.dev,
        Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
        linux-staging@...ts.linux.dev, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] staging: axis-fifo: initialize timeouts in probe only

On martedì 14 marzo 2023 21:43:40 CET Alison Schofield wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 13, 2023 at 11:07:10PM +0500, Khadija Kamran wrote:
> > Module parameter, read_timeout, can only be set at the loading time. As
> > it can only be modified once, initialize read_timeout once in the probe
> > function.
> > As a result, only use read_timeout as the last argument in
> > wait_event_interruptible_timeout() call.
> > 
> > Same goes for write_timeout.
> > 
> > Suggested-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
> > Signed-off-by: Khadija Kamran <kamrankhadijadj@...il.com>
> > ---
> 
> Looks like this is [PATCH v5] and needs a changelog.
>
Alison,

In fact, this is only the second patch that addresses Greg's suggested 
refactoring. 

Khadija moved from v3 of "staging: axis-fifo: remove tabs to align arguments" 
to v4 of this completely independent patch. And then back to v1, because (at 
the time of v4) I pointed out to her that she had started working on a project 
that has a completely different purpose than the previous one.

The best course of action would have been to ask Greg to drop the previous 
patches and then reset the numbering of the new job to v1. Unfortunately I did 
not pay attention to how she then managed the numbering following my 
observation.

What would be the best course of action at this point?

Fabio