[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <2025022731-culprit-pushpin-58e2@gregkh>
Date: Thu, 27 Feb 2025 11:31:45 -0800
From: Greg KH <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
To: Miguel Ojeda <miguel.ojeda.sandonis@...il.com>
Cc: Alice Ryhl <aliceryhl@...gle.com>,
Alistair Francis <alistair@...stair23.me>,
linux-cxl@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
lukas@...ner.de, linux-pci@...r.kernel.org, bhelgaas@...gle.com,
Jonathan.Cameron@...wei.com, rust-for-linux@...r.kernel.org,
akpm@...ux-foundation.org, boqun.feng@...il.com,
bjorn3_gh@...tonmail.com, wilfred.mallawa@....com, ojeda@...nel.org,
alistair23@...il.com, a.hindborg@...nel.org, tmgross@...ch.edu,
gary@...yguo.net, alex.gaynor@...il.com, benno.lossin@...ton.me,
Alistair Francis <alistair.francis@....com>,
Emilio Cobos Álvarez <emilio@...sal.io>
Subject: Re: [RFC v2 09/20] PCI/CMA: Expose in sysfs whether devices are
authenticated
On Thu, Feb 27, 2025 at 05:47:01PM +0100, Miguel Ojeda wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 27, 2025 at 3:04 PM Greg KH <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org> wrote:
> >
> > As this seems like it's going to be a longer-term issue, has anyone
> > thought of how it's going to be handled? Build time errors when
> > functions change is the key here, no one remembers to manually verify
> > each caller to verify the variables are correct anymore, that would be a
> > big step backwards.
>
> I can look into it, after other build system things are done.
Looks like Alice already sent a series to do this, so no need.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists