netdev - Re: [PATCH RFC v2 0/2] Add I2C fwnode lookup/get interfaces

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]

Date:   Tue, 10 Jan 2023 09:36:04 -0800
From:   Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>
To:     "Russell King (Oracle)" <linux@...linux.org.uk>
Cc:     Wolfram Sang <wsa@...nel.org>,
        "David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
        Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com>, linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-i2c@...r.kernel.org, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
        Andrew Lunn <andrew@...n.ch>,
        Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>,
        Heiner Kallweit <hkallweit1@...il.com>,
        Mika Westerberg <mika.westerberg@...ux.intel.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC v2 0/2] Add I2C fwnode lookup/get interfaces

On Tue, 10 Jan 2023 13:02:36 +0000 Russell King (Oracle) wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 09, 2023 at 12:48:37PM +0100, Wolfram Sang wrote:
> > > This RFC series is intended for the next merge window, but we will need
> > > to decide how to merge it as it is split across two subsystems. These
> > > patches have been generated against the net-next, since patch 2 depends
> > > on a recently merged patch in that tree (which is now in mainline.)  
> > 
> > I'd prefer to apply it all to my I2C tree then. I can also provide an
> > immutable branch for net if that is helpful.  
> 
> If we go for the immutable branch, then patch 2 might as well be
> merged via the net tree, if net-next is willing to pull your
> immutable branch.
> 
> Dave? Jakub? Paolo? Do you have any preferences how you'd like to
> handle this?

No strong preference here. Immutable branch works.
Patch 2 will stick out in the diffstat for i2c so may indeed be better
to apply it to net-next only, then again perhaps Wolfram prefers to
have the user merged with the API? We're fine either way.