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
| ||
|
Date: Sun, 19 Sep 2021 08:41:30 +0200 From: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org> To: Andrew Lunn <andrew@...n.ch> Cc: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@...nel.org>, Saravana Kannan <saravanak@...gle.com>, Heiner Kallweit <hkallweit1@...il.com>, Russell King <linux@...linux.org.uk>, "David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>, Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>, Len Brown <lenb@...nel.org>, Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@...ux-m68k.org>, Vladimir Oltean <olteanv@...il.com>, "Cc: Android Kernel" <kernel-team@...roid.com>, Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, netdev <netdev@...r.kernel.org>, ACPI Devel Maling List <linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org> Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 2/3] driver core: fw_devlink: Add support for FWNODE_FLAG_NEEDS_CHILD_BOUND_ON_ADD On Sun, Sep 19, 2021 at 03:16:34AM +0200, Andrew Lunn wrote: > > > diff --git a/include/linux/fwnode.h b/include/linux/fwnode.h > > > index 59828516ebaf..9f4ad719bfe3 100644 > > > --- a/include/linux/fwnode.h > > > +++ b/include/linux/fwnode.h > > > @@ -22,10 +22,15 @@ struct device; > > > * LINKS_ADDED: The fwnode has already be parsed to add fwnode links. > > > * NOT_DEVICE: The fwnode will never be populated as a struct device. > > > * INITIALIZED: The hardware corresponding to fwnode has been initialized. > > > + * NEEDS_CHILD_BOUND_ON_ADD: For this fwnode/device to probe successfully, its > > > + * driver needs its child devices to be bound with > > > + * their respective drivers as soon as they are > > > + * added. > > > > The fact that this requires so much comment text here is a clear > > band-aid indication to me. > > This whole patchset is a band aid, but it is for stable, to fix things > which are currently broken. So we need to answer the question, is a > bad aid good enough for stable, with the assumption a real fix will > come along later? Fix it properly first and worry about stable later. greg k-h
Powered by blists - more mailing lists