linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] fbdev: udlfb: make CONFIG_FB

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: <6b1f8366-7ec8-4c1f-9563-29e06a8060e2@suse.de>
Date: Tue, 7 Oct 2025 09:35:01 +0200
From: Thomas Zimmermann <tzimmermann@...e.de>
To: Helge Deller <deller@....de>, sukrut heroorkar <hsukrut3@...il.com>,
 Mikulas Patocka <mpatocka@...hat.com>
Cc: David Hunter <david.hunter.linux@...il.com>,
 kernel test robot <lkp@...el.com>, Bernie Thompson <bernie@...gable.com>,
 Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>, Randy Dunlap <rdunlap@...radead.org>,
 Bartosz Golaszewski <bartosz.golaszewski@...aro.org>,
 Zsolt Kajtar <soci@....rulez.org>,
 Gonzalo Silvalde Blanco <gonzalo.silvalde@...il.com>,
 linux-fbdev@...r.kernel.org, dri-devel@...ts.freedesktop.org,
 linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, llvm@...ts.linux.dev,
 oe-kbuild-all@...ts.linux.dev, skhan@...uxfoundation.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] fbdev: udlfb: make CONFIG_FB_DEVICE optional

Hi

Am 03.10.25 um 21:50 schrieb Helge Deller:
> On 10/3/25 20:43, sukrut heroorkar wrote:
>> On Thu, Oct 2, 2025 at 8:52 AM Thomas Zimmermann 
>> <tzimmermann@...e.de> wrote:
>>> Am 02.10.25 um 08:41 schrieb Helge Deller:
>>>>>>> kernel test robot noticed the following build errors:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Did you compile and test this code before submitting this patch?
>>>>>
>>>>> Yes, I had compiled & loaded the udlfb module with no errors. Please
>>>>> let me know how to proceed in this case.
>>>>
>>>> Look at the reported build error, which seems to happen in dev_dbg().
>>>> So, maybe in your testing you did not have debugging enabled?
>>>> The report contains the .config file with which you can test.
>>>
>>> Can we rather make an effort to remove the udlfb driver entirely? A few
>>> years back, there was one user who was still using it because of some
>>> problems with the DRM udl driver. But I think we've addressed them. The
>>> discussion is at [1].
>
> Would be good to know if they issues/crashes really have been solved.
> In [1] it seems the crashes still happened with DRM.

The thread at [1] was the original removal attempt. And that was 5 years 
ago. I think we could retry and take the reporter (Mikulas) into cc.

Best regards
Thomas

>
>> Should I send a patch series to completely remove udlfb, 
>
> No. (at least not yet)
>
>> since [1] echoed that DRM udl driver is good enough?
>>> [1] 
>>> https://lore.kernel.org/dri-devel/20201130125200.10416-1-tzimmermann@suse.de/
>
> Well, some people who do *NOT* actively use fbdev with the old
> cards say the DRM replacements are "good enough".
> For tThose people who really depend on fbdev and the speed it has
> over DRM, the DRM "basic-drivers" are simply a 
> nice-to-have-but-not-really-useable
> type of drivers.
> So, unless the really affected people say the DRM replacement
> is fully usable, we need to keep the fbdev driver.
>
> Helge

-- 
--
Thomas Zimmermann
Graphics Driver Developer
SUSE Software Solutions Germany GmbH
Frankenstrasse 146, 90461 Nuernberg, Germany
GF: Ivo Totev, Andrew Myers, Andrew McDonald, Boudien Moerman
HRB 36809 (AG Nuernberg)