linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v1 1/1] gpio: sch: Switch to memory mapped IO accessors

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

Date: Wed, 17 Apr 2024 23:49:25 +0300
From: Andy Shevchenko <andy.shevchenko@...il.com>
To: Bartosz Golaszewski <brgl@...ev.pl>
Cc: William Breathitt Gray <wbg@...nel.org>, linux-gpio@...r.kernel.org, 
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Andy Shevchenko <andy@...nel.org>, 
	Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@...aro.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v1 1/1] gpio: sch: Switch to memory mapped IO accessors

On Wed, Apr 17, 2024 at 11:46 PM Bartosz Golaszewski <brgl@...ev.pl> wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 17, 2024 at 10:41 PM Andy Shevchenko
> <andy.shevchenko@...il.com> wrote:
> > On Wed, Apr 17, 2024 at 9:19 PM Bartosz Golaszewski <brgl@...evpl> wrote:
> > > On Wed, Apr 17, 2024 at 10:05 AM Andy Shevchenko
> > > <andy.shevchenko@...il.com> wrote:
> > > > On Wed, Apr 17, 2024 at 12:17 AM Bartosz Golaszewski <brgl@...ev.pl> wrote:
> > > > > On Sat, Apr 13, 2024 at 10:31 AM William Breathitt Gray <wbg@...nel.org> wrote:

..

> > > > > I applied it as is, if anyone wants it, this can be sent on top of it.
> > > >
> > > > Thanks, but I assumed this should go via my tree and as PR to you. At
> > > > least I have it already in my for-next.
> > >
> > > You didn't respond in any way about picking it up.
> >
> > Hmm... I'm the author of it and I'm a maintainer for that driver. I'm
> > not sure if it's mandatory to respond for that purpose. Usually I
> > asked the opposite, i.e. when I'm not going to pick the thing up.
> >
> > > Can you just drop
> > > it from your branch?
> >
> > It's possible, but I will need to rebase, which is not a good thing to
> > perform. What about just leaving it as is and letting git to (nicely)
> > solve this?
>
> It won't be solved nicely, we'll get a warning about the same commit
> appearing twice with different hashes.

Oh, this sounds like a new check in Linux Next? Or somewhere else?

> Whatever, I dropped it from my tree, it was the HEAD anyway.

Thank you!

-- 
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko