linux-kernel - Re: [GIT PULL] pin control changes for v6.13

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: <CACRpkdaZ=YvMSLYWUrmsjknk-gNV8o5v_y8sasRcxweyTSkKHQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 25 Nov 2024 09:48:59 +0100
From: Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@...aro.org>
To: Sasha Levin <sashal@...nel.org>
Cc: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>, 
	"open list:GPIO SUBSYSTEM" <linux-gpio@...r.kernel.org>, linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [GIT PULL] pin control changes for v6.13

On Sun, Nov 24, 2024 at 5:55 PM Sasha Levin <sashal@...nel.org> wrote:

> I've just hit the issue you've described in this PR:
(...)
> Is effectively a revert of one of the commits that are part of this PR:
>
> >      pinctrl: aw9523: add missing mutex_destroy
>
> Would it make more sense to just re-do this PR without the offending
> commit? I understand that this is a fairly small fixup, but I'm
> concerned that this will just create confusion later on...

I don't follow what you mean I should do. The offending commit is a
fix and it is already upstream since -rc4.

Torvalds could probably fix the issue by simply reverting
393c554093c0c4cbc8e2f178d36df169016384da
instead of applying the fixup though, it has the same textual and
semantic effect. I just tested it and it works fine.

^Torvalds: looks like revert on top is a better idea than fixups
so we don't upset the stable maintainer scripts.

Yours,
Linus Walleij