linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v4] 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: <a2bdd516-686b-46fc-8991-cc4d553f3b28@kernel.org>
Date: Wed, 3 Apr 2024 08:31:27 +0200
From: Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk@...nel.org>
To: Andi Shyti <andi.shyti@...nel.org>, Vinod Koul <vkoul@...nel.org>
Cc: konrad.dybcio@...aro.org, andersson@...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,
 Mukesh Kumar Savaliya <quic_msavaliy@...cinc.com>,
 quic_vdadhani@...cinc.com, Dmitry Baryshkov <dmitry.baryshkov@...aro.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4] i2c: i2c-qcom-geni: Parse Error correctly in i2c GSI
 mode

On 30/03/2024 00:54, Andi Shyti wrote:
> Hi Vinod,
> 
> On Fri, Mar 29, 2024 at 10:15:24PM +0530, Vinod Koul wrote:
>> On 28-03-24, 08:36, Andi Shyti wrote:
>>> On Wed, 13 Mar 2024 10:56:39 +0530, Mukesh Kumar Savaliya wrote:
>>>> I2C driver currently reports "DMA txn failed" error even though it's
>>>> NACK OR BUS_PROTO OR ARB_LOST. Detect NACK error when no device ACKs
>>>> on the bus instead of generic transfer failure which doesn't give any
>>>> specific clue.
>>>>
>>>> Make Changes inside i2c driver callback handler function
>>>> i2c_gpi_cb_result() to parse these errors and make sure GSI driver
>>>> stores the error status during error interrupt.
>>>>
>>>> [...]
>>>
>>> Applied to i2c/i2c-host-next on
>>>
>>> git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/local tree
>>
>> You applied changes to dmaengine driver without my ack! I dont agree to
>> the approach here, we could do better
> 
> This patch has been around for quite some time and there has been
> time to review it. Altrady two people have approved it.

That's not true. The patch was sent during merge window, so that time
obviously does not count. Anything not being a fix sent during merge
window is postponed by many maintainers. Therefore this patch *must be*
considered as sent on 24th of March. You applied it 4 days later, giving
Vinod exactly only four days to react.

> 
> This patch has already been merged once via the i2c with the
> agreement of everyone, but reverted for a trivial failure.

You need agreement of other maintainers. Or at least ping them. Did it
happen here?

> 
> Your review come after I have merged the patch (I did merge it
> even earlier, but forgot to send the notification, which was
> anyway sent before your review).

So you applied it during merge window? How anyone can react to this?



Best regards,
Krzysztof