linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] spi: move split xfers for CS

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-Id: <170722135351.992289.8405956770330505412.b4-ty@kernel.org>
Date: Tue, 06 Feb 2024 12:09:13 +0000
From: Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org>
To: David Lechner <dlechner@...libre.com>
Cc: linux-spi@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] spi: move split xfers for CS_WORD emulation

On Fri, 26 Jan 2024 15:23:57 -0600, David Lechner wrote:
> This moves splitting transfers for CS_WORD software emulation to the
> same place where we split transfers for controller-specific reasons.
> 
> This fixes a few subtle bugs.
> 
> The calculation for maxsize was wrong for bit sizes between 17 and 24.
> This is fixed by making use of spi_split_transfers_maxwords() which
> already has the correct calculation.
> 
> [...]

Applied to

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

Thanks!

[1/1] spi: move split xfers for CS_WORD emulation
      commit: c8bec3355f08ddb887d5c13b7095dfa79e6db108

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