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

Message-ID: <2936955f-9c7b-493b-9987-7810aa705496@roeck-us.net>
Date: Mon, 15 Jul 2024 17:25:11 -0700
From: Guenter Roeck <linux@...ck-us.net>
To: Frank Li <Frank.li@....com>
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 7/15/24 14:56, Frank Li wrote:
> 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.
> 

This is not your call to make.

Guenter