netdev - Re: [PATCH v10 1/2] bus: mhi: Add mhi_queue_is

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: <87a6vp59xl.fsf@tynnyri.adurom.net>
Date:   Tue, 10 Nov 2020 20:44:06 +0200
From:   Kalle Valo <kvalo@...eaurora.org>
To:     Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>
Cc:     Manivannan Sadhasivam <manivannan.sadhasivam@...aro.org>,
        Loic Poulain <loic.poulain@...aro.org>, davem@...emloft.net,
        netdev@...r.kernel.org, linux-arm-msm@...r.kernel.org,
        bbhatt@...eaurora.org, willemdebruijn.kernel@...il.com,
        jhugo@...eaurora.org, hemantk@...eaurora.org,
        ath11k@...ts.infradead.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v10 1/2] bus: mhi: Add mhi_queue_is_full function

+ ath11k list

Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org> writes:

> On Fri, 06 Nov 2020 21:58:12 +0530 Manivannan Sadhasivam wrote:
>>>> Since you've applied now, what would you propose?  
>>>
>>> Do you need mhi_queue_is_full() in other branches, or are you just
>>> concerned about the conflicts?
>> 
>> Yes, I need this patch in mhi-next.
>> 
>>> I'm assuming the concern is just about the mhi/core patch, or would 
>>> you need to refactor something in the net driver as well?  
>> 
>> Just the mhi_queue_is_full() patch. 
>
> Okay, I think you can just apply that patch to your tree again and git
> should figure out it's a duplicate. Not optimal, because the change will
> have two hashes, but the function is trivial, shouldn't be an issue
> even if conflict happens.
>
> Will you need it in wireless (ath11k), or only in other trees?
>
> If it ends up in the wireless tree Dave or I will do the resolution when
> we pull from Kalle so it won't even appear to Linus (but then it should
> go into wireless through an immutable branch).

I think in the next few releases we need close coordination between mhi
and ath11k, both are in active development and there can be changes
which break ath11k functionality. Let's see how this goes.

-- 
https://patchwork.kernel.org/project/linux-wireless/list/

https://wireless.wiki.kernel.org/en/developers/documentation/submittingpatches