linux-kernel - Re: [DMARC error][SPF error] Re: [PATCH v4 00/10] devm_led_classdev

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: <03dde247-44c1-4ba6-b5e8-bc9c68b7a294@salutedevices.com>
Date: Wed, 14 Feb 2024 02:56:31 +0300
From: George Stark <gnstark@...utedevices.com>
To: Andy Shevchenko <andy.shevchenko@...il.com>
CC: <pavel@....cz>, <vadimp@...dia.com>, <mpe@...erman.id.au>,
	<npiggin@...il.com>, <christophe.leroy@...roup.eu>, <hdegoede@...hat.com>,
	<mazziesaccount@...il.com>, <nikitos.tr@...il.com>,
	<linux-leds@...r.kernel.org>, <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	<linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org>, Lee Jones <lee@...nel.org>,
	<kernel@...utedevices.com>, Waiman Long <longman@...hat.com>,
	"peterz@...radead.org" <peterz@...radead.org>, "boqun.feng@...il.com"
	<boqun.feng@...il.com>, "will@...nel.org" <will@...nel.org>,
	"mingo@...hat.com" <mingo@...hat.com>, Andrew Morton
	<akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: [DMARC error][SPF error] Re: [PATCH v4 00/10]
 devm_led_classdev_register() usage problem

Hello Andy

On 2/13/24 13:55, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 13, 2024 at 2:14 AM George Stark <gnstark@...utedevices.com> wrote:
>>
>> Hello Andy
>>
>> On 2/12/24 12:53, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
>>> On Mon, Feb 12, 2024 at 1:52 AM George Stark <gnstark@...utedevices.com> wrote:
>>>> I haven't lose hope for the devm_mutex thing and keep pinging those guys
>>>> from time to time.
>>>
>>> I don't understand. According to v4 thread Christophe proposed on how
>>> the patch should look like. What you need is to incorporate an updated
>>> version into your series. Am I wrong?
>>
>> We agreed that the effective way of implementing devm_mutex_init() is in
>> mutex.h using forward declaration of struct device.
>> The only inconvenient thing is that in the mutex.h mutex_init() declared
>> after mutex_destroy() so we'll have to use condition #ifdef
>> CONFIG_DEBUG_MUTEXES twice. Waiman Long proposed great cleanup patch [1]
>> that eliminates the need of doubling #ifdef. That patch was reviewed a
>> bit but it's still unapplied (near 2 months). I'm still trying to
>> contact mutex.h guys but there're no any feedback yet.
> 
> So the roadmap (as I see it) is:
> - convince Lee to take the first patch while waiting for the others
> - incorporate the above mentioned patch into your series
> - make an ultimatum in case there is no reaction to get it applied on
> deadline, let's say within next cycle (if Lee is okay with a such, but
> this is normal practice when some maintainers are non-responsive)

Well, it was interesting to know that there is such a practice.

Waiman Long has just updated his patches with mutex.h cleanup [1] so I
think we can wait for that series to be merged than I'll prepare may
patchseries with or w\o the first patch.

[1] 
https://lore.kernel.org/all/20240213031656.1375951-4-longman@redhat.com/T/

> 
> P.S. In case Lee doesn't want to take the first patch separately
> (let's say this week), send a new version with amended patches
> included.

Ok

> 
>> [1]
>> https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20231216013656.1382213-2-longman@redhat.com/T/#m795b230d662c1debb28463ad721ddba5b384340a
> 
> 

-- 
Best regards
George