linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] cpufreq: exit() callback is optional

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>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20240412062407.ntahibzv6xsbrnxs@vireshk-i7>
Date: Fri, 12 Apr 2024 11:54:07 +0530
From: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@...aro.org>
To: lizhe <sensor1010@....com>
Cc: rafael <rafael@...nel.org>, linux-pm <linux-pm@...r.kernel.org>,
	Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@...aro.org>,
	linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] cpufreq: exit() callback is optional

On 12-04-24, 14:12, lizhe wrote:
> I was the first one to find this problem, so the patch should be submitted by me.

:)

This patch doesn't take away any of the work you have done. What you are trying
to do is simplify drivers with empty exit callback and the unused return value
of the callback.

And what I am trying to do is fix a bug in the cpufreq core, which only makes
your other patches more acceptable.

So no, you never identified the problem this patch is trying to solve.

Please don't feel that anyone is trying to take away your hardwork. That's not
how things are done here. We appreciate anyone who is spending time to make the
kernel better.

If I were to take credit of your work, then I would have sent a big patch to fix
the exit() callback issue you are trying to solve, with randomly sent patches.

-- 
viresh