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: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

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

Date:   Tue, 14 Mar 2023 16:57:47 -0700
From:   Alison Schofield <alison.schofield@...el.com>
To:     "Fabio M. De Francesco" <fmdefrancesco@...il.com>
Cc:     Khadija Kamran <kamrankhadijadj@...il.com>,
        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 Tue, Mar 14, 2023 at 10:31:21PM +0100, Fabio wrote:
> 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?

My guess is that this patch gets ignored because it has a lower version
number than a previous patch.

Take the feedback given here, and rev to
[PATCH v5] staging: axis-fifo: initialize timeouts in probe only

Be sure the Changelog, below the --- explains the journey.

Changes in v5:

Changes in v4:

Changes in v3:

Changes in v2:


> 
> Fabio
> 
>