linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2] hexagon: Disable constant extender optimization for LLVM prior to 19.1.0

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: <20241218182333.GB2948182@ax162>
Date: Wed, 18 Dec 2024 11:23:33 -0700
From: Nathan Chancellor <nathan@...nel.org>
To: Brian Cain <bcain@...cinc.com>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
	"linux-hexagon@...r.kernel.org" <linux-hexagon@...r.kernel.org>,
	"patches@...ts.linux.dev" <patches@...ts.linux.dev>,
	"llvm@...ts.linux.dev" <llvm@...ts.linux.dev>,
	"stable@...r.kernel.org" <stable@...r.kernel.org>,
	"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] hexagon: Disable constant extender optimization for
 LLVM prior to 19.1.0

Hi Brian,

On Wed, Dec 18, 2024 at 04:19:23AM +0000, Brian Cain wrote:
> > I'm sorry.  You should not have to send these changes to Linus. I should have
> > carried it in my tree and proposed it to Linus.
> > 
> > I'll do that, if you don't mind.
> 
> I see it's landed.  Sorry, all.  I'll resolve to do a better job here.

As Nick said, no worries, these things happen. If going straight to
Linus gave the impression that you did something wrong or inadequate, I
apologize, as that was not the intention. I seem to recall even recently
him saying that he does not mind applying patches directly from the
mailing list and bypassing the maintainer/subsystem when it fixes an
issue (cannot find the exact message I am thinking of but [1] is also
good). Since this patch is small and limited in scope, I figured it was
not worth any more pings.

That said, consistent ownership of arch/hexagon patches would not be a
bad thing going forward :)

[1]: https://lore.kernel.org/CAHk-=wgQhFPvneqAVXjUZDq=ahpATdgfg6LZ9n07MSSUGkQWuA@mail.gmail.com/

Cheers,
Nathan