linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 0/2] drm/bridge: panel: Check device dependency before managing device link

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]

Message-ID: <CACRpkdbKwycpjuhMfnriqMUcbmwCTb3vJzgzCF7+ARax54q7WQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Mon, 27 Nov 2023 23:13:31 +0100
From:   Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@...aro.org>
To:     Maxime Ripard <mripard@...nel.org>
Cc:     Liu Ying <victor.liu@....com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        dri-devel@...ts.freedesktop.org, linux-next@...r.kernel.org,
        sfr@...b.auug.org.au, gregkh@...uxfoundation.org,
        rafael@...nel.org, andrzej.hajda@...el.com,
        neil.armstrong@...aro.org, rfoss@...nel.org,
        Laurent.pinchart@...asonboard.com, jonas@...boo.se,
        jernej.skrabec@...il.com, maarten.lankhorst@...ux.intel.com,
        tzimmermann@...e.de, airlied@...il.com, daniel@...ll.ch,
        angelogioacchino.delregno@...labora.com, ulf.hansson@...aro.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 0/2] drm/bridge: panel: Check device dependency before
 managing device link

On Mon, Nov 27, 2023 at 5:29 PM Maxime Ripard <mripard@...nel.org> wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 27, 2023 at 05:03:53PM +0100, Linus Walleij wrote:

> > > Liu Ying (2):
> > >   driver core: Export device_is_dependent() to modules
> > >   drm/bridge: panel: Check device dependency before managing device link
> >
> > I just applied patch 1 directly to the drm-misc-fixes so we don't have to
> > revert and then re-apply patches, because that is a bigger evil. (We can't
> > rebase these branches...)
>
> Erm, you did wait for GKH or Rafael's ACK to do that, right?

No.

It is a bigger evil to leave the tree broken than to enforce formal process,
and it is pretty self-evident. If any of them get annoyed about it we can
revert the patch, or both.

Yours,
Linus Walleij