linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v6 0/6] Add module support for Arm64 Exynos MCT driver

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: <aSCnpO72osBqfmTj@google.com>
Date: Fri, 21 Nov 2025 17:55:48 +0000
From: William McVicker <willmcvicker@...gle.com>
To: "Russell King (Oracle)" <linux@...linux.org.uk>
Cc: Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>,
	Will Deacon <will@...nel.org>,
	Daniel Lezcano <daniel.lezcano@...aro.org>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
	Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk@...nel.org>,
	Alim Akhtar <alim.akhtar@...sung.com>,
	Donghoon Yu <hoony.yu@...sung.com>,
	Hosung Kim <hosung0.kim@...sung.com>, Rob Herring <robh@...nel.org>,
	John Stultz <jstultz@...gle.com>,
	Youngmin Nam <youngmin.nam@...sung.com>,
	Peter Griffin <peter.griffin@...aro.org>,
	Tudor Ambarus <tudor.ambarus@...aro.org>,
	André Draszik <andre.draszik@...aro.org>,
	Conor Dooley <conor+dt@...nel.org>,
	Marek Szyprowski <m.szyprowski@...sung.com>,
	linux-samsung-soc@...r.kernel.org, kernel-team@...roid.com,
	linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v6 0/6] Add module support for Arm64 Exynos MCT driver

Hi Russell,

On 11/21/2025, Russell King (Oracle) wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 20, 2025 at 06:42:28PM +0000, Will McVicker wrote:
> > This series adds support to build the Arm64 Exynos MCT driver as a module.
> 
> There are parts of this that are just totally incompatible with it
> being a module. For example, you can't register a replacement udelay
> loop after the system has booted.
> 
> This is the second time I've faced a patch series wanting to remove
> __init anntations to call it from a module, where the author has
> clearly not analysed the code to see whether that is a valid thing
> to do. This is unfair on reviewers - it is the submitters
> responsibility to check that what they are doing is valid.
> 
> Moreover, in _this_ case, you will have received a kernel diagnostic
> message stating that the call to register_current_timer_delay()
> was ignored, so I also question whether you bothered to run-time
> test this change.

Sorry for wasting your time on this due to my lack of explanation. PTAL at my
response in the other patch set.

To address your testing concerns, this series has been thoroughly tested on
Pixel 6 (ARM64) since 2021 starting with the 5.10 kernel version and is
continually being tested on the latest kernel version today.

Thanks,
Will