linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v3 1/1] watchdog: imx7ulp_wdt: move post_rcs_wait into struct imx_wdt_hw

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: <ZpWbHLid9du0tdlS@lizhi-Precision-Tower-5810>
Date: Mon, 15 Jul 2024 17:56:44 -0400
From: Frank Li <Frank.li@....com>
To: Guenter Roeck <linux@...ck-us.net>
Cc: alice.guo@....com, festevam@...il.com, imx@...ts.linux.dev,
	kernel@...gutronix.de, linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-watchdog@...r.kernel.org,
	s.hauer@...gutronix.de, shawnguo@...nel.org, wim@...ux-watchdog.org,
	ye.li@....com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 1/1] watchdog: imx7ulp_wdt: move post_rcs_wait into
 struct imx_wdt_hw_feature

On Mon, Jul 15, 2024 at 02:42:23PM -0700, Guenter Roeck wrote:
> On 7/15/24 11:34, Frank Li wrote:
> > On Mon, Jul 15, 2024 at 11:01:04AM -0700, Guenter Roeck wrote:
> > > On 7/15/24 10:07, Frank Li wrote:
> > > > Move post_rcs_wait into struct imx_wdt_hw_feature to simplify code logic
> > > > for different compatible strings
> > > > 
> > > > i.MX93 and i.MX8ULP watchdog do not need to wait 2.5 clocks after RCS is
> > > > done. Set post_rcs_wait to false explicitly to maintain code consistency.
> > > > 
> > > 
> > > Why ? That is not necessary and typically frowned upon for static variables.
> > 
> > Some maintainer in other subsystem like explicity set to false to read code
> > easily even though not necessary for static variable espcially there are
> > already one which set to false.
> > 
> > I am fine for each ways. You are free to pick up v2 instead of v3 if you
> > don't like v3's change.
> > 
> 
> That is not the point. The point here is that you made an - in my opinion
> unnecessary - change to this patch while at the same time adding my
> Reviewed-by: tag which applied to another version of the patch.
> This is inappropriate. Please refrain from doing that in the future.

According to my previous experience, drop review tag only when there are
'big' change in new version. Of cause, the 'big' is quite subjective. I
think "set false explicitly" is not 'big' enough to drop review tags.

Frank 

> 
> Guenter
>