linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] arm64: Add missing registrations of SF8MMx hwcaps

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <1be1b5e9-9aa9-4f1c-9cdc-c4bf94f2dbc8@sirena.org.uk>
Date: Tue, 11 Feb 2025 13:30:25 +0000
From: Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org>
To: Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>
Cc: Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>,
	Will Deacon <will@...nel.org>, linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] arm64: Add missing registrations of SF8MMx hwcaps

On Tue, Feb 11, 2025 at 01:15:52PM +0000, Mark Rutland wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 11, 2025 at 12:58:10PM +0000, Mark Brown wrote:

> > Well, I was actually intending to send a separate patch given that
> > otherwise it ends up looking like two different changelogs in the same
> > patch and the diffs shouldn't overlap.

> It would be simpler for others if you sent a single patch that handled
> the three hwcaps that we failed to wire up in commit 819935464cb2. That
> way they only have one thing to track.

> I don't understand what you mean by "two different changelogs"; surely the
> commit message is a trivial variation of the one for this v1 patch:

My first scan through had made it look like there was more stuff missing
for FPRCVT but now that I go to write the change that's not actually the
case, it's different handling of the different ID registers.

Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (485 bytes)