linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH V3] ahci: enhance error handling in ahci_init

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: <aDQiNEfh2i-XTAxs@ryzen>
Date: Mon, 26 May 2025 10:11:32 +0200
From: Niklas Cassel <cassel@...nel.org>
To: Damien Le Moal <dlemoal@...nel.org>,
	Alexander Roman <monderasdor@...il.com>, linux-ide@...r.kernel.org
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH V3] ahci: enhance error handling in ahci_init_one

Hello Alexander,

On Sun, May 25, 2025 at 12:10:07AM +0200, Niklas Cassel wrote:
> >> @@ -1619,60 +1619,72 @@ static int ahci_init_one(struct pci_dev *pdev, const struct pci_device_id *ent)
> >>  	VPRINTK("ahci_init_one enter\n");
> 
> There is no VPRINTK() here since a long time ago.
> 
> So this must be based on some ancient kernel version.
> 
> Please base your patches on:
> https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/libata/linux.git/log/?h=for-next

Sorry, but I forgot to mention, please don't use the In-Reply-To: header
to reference older versions of your patch.

To quote Submitting Patches, it creates an 'unmanageable forest':
https://docs.kernel.org/process/submitting-patches.html#explicit-in-reply-to-headers


Kind regards,
Niklas