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: <20240412063246.tk5z245miakbxws4@vireshk-i7>
Date: Fri, 12 Apr 2024 12:02:46 +0530
From: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@...aro.org>
To: gregkh@...uxfoundation.org
Cc: lizhe <sensor1010@....com>, 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

Getting the Cc list back, + Greg.

Greg,

Looks like another one of those experiments with the community ?

:)

On 12-04-24, 14:27, lizhe wrote:
> You are really disgusting and have no manners at all. This makes people feel disgusted with your company.
> 
> 
> 
> ---- Replied Message ----
> | From | Viresh Kumar<viresh.kumar@...aro.org> |
> | Date | 04/12/2024 14:24 |
> | 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