linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v3] i2c: i2c-qcom-geni: Parse Error correctly in i2c GSI mode

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: <tbbpjk7ddpqnbtdu26pdcj3kzpanbih7cnok6vudbjq32qeoly@rrdsi2mgfsfp>
Date: Fri, 8 Mar 2024 13:00:53 +0100
From: Andi Shyti <andi.shyti@...nel.org>
To: Mukesh Kumar Savaliya <quic_msavaliy@...cinc.com>
Cc: konrad.dybcio@...aro.org, andersson@...nel.org, vkoul@...nel.org, 
	wsa@...nel.org, linux-arm-msm@...r.kernel.org, dmaengine@...r.kernel.org, 
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-i2c@...r.kernel.org, quic_vdadhani@...cinc.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3] i2c: i2c-qcom-geni: Parse Error correctly in i2c GSI
 mode

Hi Mukesh,

> > > > > Fixes: d8703554f4de ("i2c: qcom-geni: Add support for GPI DMA")
> > > > 
> > > > I still don't understand what's the fix here. You are making a
> > > > generic DMA error to be more specific... where is the bug? What
> > > > exactly is broken now?
> > > > 
> > > This is about being particular while reporting specific error.
> > > Like i mentioned, instead of generic DMA transfer error, it should be
> > > particular error 1) NACK 2) BUT_PROTO 3)ARB_LOST.
> > > Ofcourse when data transfer via DMA fails, it can be considered as
> > > DMA Txfer fail.
> > > In summary so far driver was considering all failure as txfer failure,
> > > but i2c has errors which are kind of response/condition on the bus.
> > 
> > I understand that, but what I need to know is: does the system
> > crash? does the system act in unexpected way?
> > 
> > Moving from "you received an error" to "you received a nack" is
> > not a fix, it's an improvement and it should not have the Fixes
> > tag.
> > 
> > Having the Fixes tag decides which path this patch will take to
> > to reach upstream. It's important because after it gets to
> > upstream other people will take your patch and backport it older
> > kernels.
> > 
> > I want to avoid this extra work when not necessary.
> > 
> 
> Sure, then i think i should be removing fixes tag. It's not a crash but
> it's an improvement. That being said, i think don't need to CC stable kernel
> list and i should remove fixes tag ?

yes, don't need to do anything else, I will take care of
everything from now on. If Wolfram accepts a last minute pull
request, I can queue this up for 6.9.

Thank you,
Andi