linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 2/3] spi: ppc4xx: Fix fallout from rename in struct spi

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, 27 Feb 2024 14:17:23 +0000
From: Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org>
To: Uwe Kleine-König <u.kleine-koenig@...gutronix.de>
Cc: Rob Herring <robh@...nel.org>, kernel test robot <lkp@...el.com>,
	Stephen Warren <swarren@...dotorg.org>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-spi@...r.kernel.org,
	H Hartley Sweeten <hsweeten@...ionengravers.com>,
	kernel@...gutronix.de,
	Jonathan Cameron <Jonathan.Cameron@...wei.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/3] spi: ppc4xx: Fix fallout from rename in struct
 spi_bitbang

On Tue, Feb 27, 2024 at 02:45:05PM +0100, Uwe Kleine-König wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 27, 2024 at 12:50:15PM +0000, Mark Brown wrote:
> > On Tue, Feb 27, 2024 at 08:23:06AM +0100, Uwe Kleine-König wrote:

> > BTW the issue here is that you sent this without comment in the middle
> > of a series of fixes the other two of which *do* apply to mainline,
> > ideally it would have just been sent separately since it needs to go
> > separately but if you *are* going to send a single series like this
> > things that are -next only should go after any fixes that are for
> > mainline.

> I expected that adding Fixes lines is enough documentation but I agree
> that in retrospect it would have been a good idea to mention the
> expected target branch for each patch. I'm willing to take half of the

The Fixes would have done the right thing if the ordering was what I
expected or if it had been sent separately - basically I wasn't
expecting to find -next material after a mainline fix in the series so
I'll not check back further in the series. 

> blame you assigned me as in retrospect double checking the Fixes lines
> or doing a compile test of the ppc4xx driver would also have been a good
> idea for you as maintainer applying the patches. Sorry for my

I have a standard set of checks I do but as you pointed out the driver
doesn't even build with a PowerPC defconfig, let alone cross
architecture - at some point it gets to be the same situation as with
if drivers for hardware I don't have works.  The coverage in CI systems
is generally good enough for long tail configs like this, but AFAICT
even 0day didn't notice here.

Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (489 bytes)