linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 1/6] wifi: ath10k: sdio: simplify module initialization

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: Wed, 3 Apr 2024 16:02:30 +0200
From: Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski@...aro.org>
To: Kalle Valo <kvalo@...nel.org>, Jeff Johnson <quic_jjohnson@...cinc.com>
Cc: Jeff Johnson <jjohnson@...nel.org>,
 Brian Norris <briannorris@...omium.org>,
 Ajay Singh <ajay.kathat@...rochip.com>,
 Claudiu Beznea <claudiu.beznea@...on.dev>, linux-wireless@...r.kernel.org,
 ath10k@...ts.infradead.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/6] wifi: ath10k: sdio: simplify module initialization

On 03/04/2024 15:50, Kalle Valo wrote:
> Jeff Johnson <quic_jjohnson@...cinc.com> writes:
> 
>> On 3/29/2024 10:10 AM, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
>>> This driver's initialization functions do not perform any custom code,
>>> except printing messages.  Printing messages on modules
>>> loading/unloading is discouraged because it pollutes the dmesg
>>> regardless whether user actually has this device.  Core kernel code
>>> already gives tools to investigate whether module was loaded or not.
>>>
>>> Drop the printing messages which allows to replace open-coded
>>> module_sdio_driver().
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski@...aro.org>
>>
>> Acked-by: Jeff Johnson <quic_jjohnson@...cinc.com>
>>
>>>
>>> ---
>>>
>>> FYI:
>>> I have ongoing patchset touching few lines above this patch chunk
>>> (sdio_driver) which might go via different tree. If that patchset is
>>> applied via different tree, it might result in a trivial conflict, but
>>> there is no dependency. They can go via separate trees (except that
>>> trivial conflict).
>>
>> I'll let Kalle respond if he'll take this through the ath tree vs letting you
>> take it through your tree
> 
> I prefer to avoid conflicts as much as possible. In this patchset I'm
> not anticipating any conflicts with wireless trees, so if we can avoid
> any conflicts, please take this patchset via the other tree:
> 
> Acked-by: Kalle Valo <kvalo@...nel.org>
> 
> I'll drop this patchset from my queue. But if I should take these to
> wireless trees instead just let me know.

Just to clarify - only the first patch has possible conflict. The rest
should be fine. Can you pick up 2-6 patches from this set?

Best regards,
Krzysztof